Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) can be found throughout the entire gastrointestinal tract but are most common in the stomach (60%) and small intestine (30%). Only 5% of tumors present in the duodenum, which can be a challenging location for surgical resection1,2. Although surgery continues to be the primary modality of GIST treatment, targeted systemic therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), can be considered for patients with high tumor burden or increased risk of recurrence. Key pathological factors in prognostication and risk stratification include tumor size, mitotic rate, and, more recently, tumor location has been implicated, where gastric tumors tend to be more indolent and intestinal tumors more aggressive3,4.
The majority of GISTs have a mutation in the KIT receptor tyrosine kinase or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA). However, up to 15% lack a mutation in the commonly tested KIT exons 9, 11, 13, and 17 or PDGFRA exons 12, 14, 185,6. Evaluating tumor mutational status can have a significant impact on management and clinical outcomes. These include confirmation of diagnosis and prognostication if other studies are inconclusive, as well as predicting responsiveness to targeted systemic therapies2. Tumors lacking these well-described mutations are typically defined as 'wild-type GISTs' and generally considered to have little to no response to TKI therapy6. This GIST subset, however, is likely an oversimplification, as tumors may be more genetically heterogeneous than previously thought. Recent reports have challenged this notion, demonstrating that wild-type GISTs with an activating exon 8 mutation have an in vitro response to imatinib, and patients with this mutation may benefit from imatinib administration7,8,9.
For optimal oncologic outcomes of any GIST, an R0 resection without lymph node clearance remains the goal. However, the unique anatomy of the duodenum and close proximity to several critical structures, such as the pancreas, biliary ducts, and ampulla of Vater, may pose a significant challenge for managing duodenal GISTs10,11. Broadly, options for resection include a limited duodenal resection or a more extensive PD. Factors contributing to this decision include tumor size, proximity to the ampulla, and risk of tumor rupture. Another important consideration in performing an oncologic resection is minimizing post-operative surgical morbidity, which could impact resumption of systemic therapy, if indicated. Thus, the surgical procedure of choice is not standardized for duodenal GISTs and remains highly individualized10,11.
CASE PRESENTATION:
A 73-year-old male with an unremarkable past medical and surgical history presented with symptomatic anemia for which he underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy at an outside facility. No abnormalities were found on colonoscopy, but a large, ulcerated mass was identified near the ampulla of Vater during the EGD. Biopsies were obtained but were negative for malignancy. He was then transferred to our facility for additional care.
Diagnosis, Assessment, and Plan:
A repeat EGD along with endoscopic ultrasound was performed, showing a hypoechoic, lobulated mass with overlying ulceration (Figure 1). The mass appeared to be originating from the muscularis propria and was opposite and 1cm distal to the ampulla of Vater. A fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy was performed, revealing strong positivity for KIT (CD117) and DOG1, markers of GISTs, on immunohistochemical staining. Unfortunately, a mitotic count could not be obtained due to scant sampling. Staging computed tomography (CT) showed the disease was isolated to the duodenum with the mass measuring 4.7 x 3.3 x 2.9 cm (Figure 2).
Due to the size and location of the mass, a PD was likely necessary if surgical resection had been pursued at time of presentation For this reason, genetic testing was obtained to evaluate the potential for targeted therapy to reduce the tumor burden, potentially allowing for a more limited resection. Initial genetic testing was negative, but further testing revealed a rare exon 8 KIT mutation. Following consultation with the patient, neoadjuvant therapy with imatinib was started at a daily dose of 400 mg to facilitate a more conservative surgical approach. Imaging performed at 3 and 6 months demonstrated tumor size decreases of 18% and 30%, respectively. In light of this response, surgical management was subsequently pursued.