Jaladi, Soumya

Abstract Introduction/Objective Mutations in KIT and PDGFRA drive the majority of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and inform targeted therapy selection. While single-driver mutations are typical, a subset of cases harbors multiple KIT mutations, complicating clinical interpretation. This study investigated the frequency, distribution, and inferred hierarchy of primary and secondary KIT mutations using DNA-based sequencing in a large GIST cohort. Methods/Case Report We retrospectively reviewed 579 GIST cases that underwent DNA-based next-generation sequencing using a custom panel targeting all coding exons of KIT and PDGFRA. Tumor-rich formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue was required. In double-mutant cases, the mutation with higher variant allele frequency (VAF) was presumed to be primary. Results Mutations in KIT or PDGFRA were detected in 482/579 cases (83.2%). Among KIT-mutant cases, 28 had two mutations and one had three. Secondary mutations frequently occurred in exons 13, 14, and 17 and were significantly more common in non-gastric tumors (p < 0.0001). Primary mutations most often involved exon 11. Conclusion VAF analysis enabled classification of mutation hierarchy in cases with multiple KIT mutations. The distinct anatomical and exon-specific distribution of primary vs. secondary mutations highlights their potential therapeutic implications and warrants further study.

Objective Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. Methods We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. Results We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. Conclusion Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.