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.

PDGFRA D842V-mutant GIST: the decisions you may face

3 treatment settings, 1 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.

Early / localised

Localised, resectable

One path named

Surgical resection; no adjuvant imatinib because the mutation is resistant to it.

The path, in plain words

Surgeons operate through small incisions using robotic arms with tremor-free precision and 3D vision.

  • Precision, shorter stay
  • Enables complex minimally invasive resections
Also referenced:PDGFRA
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
  • Cost
  • Loss of haptic feedback
  • Not superior for every indication
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Robotic & minimally invasive surgery 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 (localised, resectable), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Surgical resection; no adjuvant imatinib because the mutation is resistant to it.

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

Advanced, first line

Advanced, first line

One path named

Avapritinib 300 mg daily (NAVIGATOR), with monitoring for cognitive effects and bleeding.

The path, in plain words

Avapritinib is the first drug for GIST driven by the PDGFRA D842V mutation, which resists every other kinase inhibitor; it is also approved for systemic mastocytosis.

Also referenced:PDGFRAKIT
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

No side-effect rates or interaction flags are recorded for these options yet. The side-effect lookup and interaction checker cover the products that have them.

Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Avapritinib 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 (advanced, first line), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Avapritinib 300 mg daily (NAVIGATOR), with monitoring for cognitive effects and bleeding.
  5. Am I a candidate for Avapritinib, 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.

Second line

Progression on avapritinib

2 options

No established therapy; clinical trials, surgery or embolisation for isolated progression; regorafenib and other kinase inhibitors have low activity.

The options, in plain words

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

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
  • Third/fourth-line GIST: avapritinib vs regorafenib

    PFS HR 1.25 (negative).

    Progression-free survival (median) (months): Avapritinib 4.2 (n=240) vs Regorafenib 5.6 (n=236) · HR 1.25 · source
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.
  • Low shedding in some tumours (brain, early-stage)
  • Clonal haematopoiesis false positives
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Regorafenib 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 VOYAGER, 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 (progression on avapritinib), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: No established therapy; clinical trials, surgery or embolisation for isolated progression; regorafenib and other kinase inhibitors have low activity.
  6. 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.
  7. How do the results of VOYAGER 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.