Back

Prediction of Mutations and Outcome in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors with Deep Learning: A Multicenter, Multinational Study

Bonetti, A.; Le, V.-L.; Carrero, Z. I.; Wolf, F.; Gustav, M.; Lam, S. W.; Vanhersecke, L.; Sobczuk, P.; LE LOARER, F.; Lenarcik, M.; Rutkowski, P.; van Sabben, J. M.; Steeghs, N.; van Boven, H.; Machado, I.; Bague, S.; Navarro, S.; Medina-Ceballos, E.; Agra, C.; Giner, F.; Tapia, G.; Hernandez Gallego, A.; Civantos Jubera, G.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Lopez-Prades, S.; Perret, R. E.; Soubeyran, I.; Khalifa, E.; Blouin, L.; Wardelmann, E.; Meurgey, A.; Collini, P.; Voloshin, A.; Yatabe, Y.; Hirano, H.; Gronchi, A.; Nishida, T.; Bouche, O.; Emile, J.-F.; NGO, C.; Hohenberger, P.; Cotarelo, C.; Jakob, J.

2026-02-03 oncology
10.64898/2026.02.02.26345350 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor, driven by tyrosine-protein kinase KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor A (PDGFRA) mutations. Specific variants, such as KIT exon 11 deletions, carry prognostic and therapeutic implications, whereas wild-type (WT) variants derive limited benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Given the limited reproducibility of established clinicopathological risk models, deep learning (DL) applied to whole-slide images (WSIs) emerged as a promising tool for molecular classification and prognostic assessment. Patients and methodsWe analyzed 8398 GIST cases from 21 centers in 7 countries, including 7238 with molecular data and 2638 with clinical follow-up. DL models were trained on WSIs to predict mutations, treatment sensitivity, and recurrence-free survival (RFS). ResultsDL predicted mutational status in GIST from WSIs, with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 for KIT, 0.96 for PDGFRA. High performance was observed for subtypes, including KIT exon 11 delinss 557-558 (0.67) and PDGFRA exon 18 D842V (0.93). For therapeutic categories, performance reached 0.84 for avapritinib sensitivity, 0.81 for imatinib sensitivity. DL models predicted RFS, with hazard-ratios (HR) of 8.44 (95%CI 6.14-11.61) in the overall cohort and 4.74 (95%CI 3.34-6.74) in patients receiving adjuvant therapy. Prognostic performance was comparable to pathology-based scores, with highest discrimination in the overall cohort and in patients without adjuvant therapy (9.44, 95%CI (5.87-15.20)). ConclusionDL applied to WSIs enables prediction of molecular alterations, treatment sensitivity, and RFS in GIST, performing comparably to established risk scores across international cohorts, providing a baseline for future multimodal predictors. HighlightsO_LIDeep learning on histology predicts KIT and PDGFRA mutations in a large international cohort of GISTs from multiple centers C_LIO_LIWhole-slide image models stratify recurrence-free survival comparable to pathology-based risk scores C_LIO_LIPrognostic value of deep learning is preserved in adjuvant therapy subgroups, supporting treatment duration decisions C_LI O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=117 SRC="FIGDIR/small/26345350v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (36K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@652548org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@729a2borg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1e7b6b9org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@18d6721_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG O_FLOATNOGraphical abstract.C_FLOATNO Overview of study design and dataset characteristics. (A) Multinational collection of WSIs from seven countries (Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Japan), followed by standard image preprocessing with the STAMP pipeline and clinical data preprocessing/standardization via the Grammar Data Curation framework. The workflow was divided into two main branches: (i) molecular mutation and treatment sensitivity prediction, and (ii) RFS prediction. Model performance was evaluated using AUROC and F1 score for classification tasks, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with hazard ratios for RFS. Model explainability was assessed through heatmaps of WSIs and identification of top predictive tiles. (B) Summary of clinical dataset composition: proportion of cases receiving adjuvant therapy, tumor location distribution, mutation distribution at the exon level, and mutation distribution at the codon level. C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
2
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.2%
6
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.0%
7
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
8
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
10
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
11
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
13
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.2%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.2%
18
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
20
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
21
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Cancer Cell
38 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
28
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
29
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
30
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%