OnCo

Sign in to keep your watchlist

Your watched pages live in this browser. Sign in with an email link and OnCo keeps the same list on every device you use. Only your email address and your watchlist are stored.

Imatinib-resistant GIST: the decisions you may face

4 treatment settings, 3 with more than one named option. Each section lays out the options the standard of care names, what each is for, the trials behind them with their recorded results, the side effects and cautions on record, and questions to ask. Built from the cancer page's standard-of-care rows; nothing here is advice for your case.

Second line

Progression on imatinib 400 mg

2 options

Confirm adherence and plasma level; dose escalation to 800 mg (especially exon 9); local therapy for isolated progression while continuing imatinib.

The options, in plain words

The drug that started the targeted therapy era in 2001, turning chronic myeloid leukaemia into a manageable condition with near-normal life expectancy.

Thermal ablation kills a tumour with heat or cold delivered through a needle, with no incision required.

  • Outpatient, repeatable
  • Preserves organ function
Also referenced:KIT
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Take with a meal and a large glass of water.
  • Size limit ~3 cm
  • Heat-sink near vessels
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Imatinib and Thermal ablation (RFA, microwave, cryo), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (progression on imatinib 400 mg), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Confirm adherence and plasma level; dose escalation to 800 mg (especially exon 9); local therapy for isolated progression while continuing imatinib.
  5. Am I a candidate for Imatinib, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Sunitinib; ripretinib as an alternative, preferred where the secondary mutation is in exon 17 or 18 (INTRIGUE subgroup; INSIGHT ongoing).

The options, in plain words

Sunitinib is an anti-angiogenic pill approved for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, kidney cancer and GIST.

A fourth-line GIST drug that locks KIT in an off state regardless of which resistance mutation the tumour has acquired.

Liquid biopsy (ctDNA)Standard of care

A blood test that reads fragments of DNA shed by the tumour, so you can genotype or monitor cancer without a needle in the tumour.

  • Minimally invasive, repeatable
  • Whole-body clonal picture
The evidence behind it
The main trade-offs on record
  • Avoid grapefruit.
  • Known QT prolongation. Avoid other QT-prolonging drugs where possible; check ECG and correct potassium and magnesium before and during treatment.
  • Low shedding in some tumours (brain, early-stage)
  • Clonal haematopoiesis false positives
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Sunitinib, Ripretinib and Liquid biopsy (ctDNA), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in A Study of Ripretinib vs Sunitinib in Advanced GIST Patients After Treatment With Imatinib and INSIGHT, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  5. For my situation (second line), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Sunitinib; ripretinib as an alternative, preferred where the secondary mutation is in exon 17 or 18 (INTRIGUE subgroup; INSIGHT ongoing).
  6. Am I a candidate for Sunitinib, Ripretinib, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  7. How do the results of A Study of Ripretinib vs Sunitinib in Advanced GIST Patients After Treatment With Imatinib and INSIGHT apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

One path named

Regorafenib (GRID).

The path, in plain words

A sorafenib successor that became the first second-line drug proven to prolong life in liver cancer (2017).

The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Take with a low-fat breakfast (under 30% fat).
  • Not recommended in severe impairment; hepatotoxicity is a boxed warning.
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Regorafenib the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (third line), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Regorafenib (GRID).
  5. Am I a candidate for Regorafenib, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Third line and beyond

Fourth line and beyond

Ripretinib (INVICTUS); imatinib rechallenge; trials of next-generation KIT inhibitors.

The options, in plain words

A fourth-line GIST drug that locks KIT in an off state regardless of which resistance mutation the tumour has acquired.

The drug that started the targeted therapy era in 2001, turning chronic myeloid leukaemia into a manageable condition with near-normal life expectancy.

IDRX-42 is an experimental small-molecule drug from GlaxoSmithKline in phase 3 trials for gastrointestinal stromal tumour, with its target not yet stated publicly.

NB003 is an experimental small-molecule drug from Ningbo Newbay Technology Development in phase 3 trials for gastrointestinal stromal tumour, with its target not yet stated publicly.

Bezuclastinib is an experimental small-molecule drug from Cogent Biosciences in phase 3 trials for gastrointestinal stromal tumour, aimed at KIT and MET.

The evidence behind it
The main trade-offs on record
  • Take with a meal and a large glass of water.
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Ripretinib, Imatinib, IDRX-42 and the other options, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in INVICTUS, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  5. For my situation (fourth line and beyond), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Ripretinib (INVICTUS); imatinib rechallenge; trials of next-generation KIT inhibitors.
  6. Am I a candidate for Ripretinib, Imatinib, IDRX-42 or related drugs, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  7. How do the results of INVICTUS apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

How to read this page. Options and results come from OnCo records with their sources; the settings are the standard-of-care rows on the cancer page, and the lines of therapy are on the sequencing grid. Where a setting names one path, the choice is usually about timing, trials and where to be treated: see expert centres. OnCo is orientation, not medical advice.