Evidence Hub

Management and prognostic outcomes of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in Sub-Saharan Africa: the central role of surgery in resource-limited settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014-2024)

Gnangnon FHR, Godjo C, Fotso P, Gayito Adagba RA, Gbessi DG, Dossou FM

World journal of surgical oncology, 2026

410 participants

Abstract

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the digestive tract. However, data from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remain fragmented, and no prior systematic review has synthesized regional diagnostic and treatment practices.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024575650). PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online were searched for studies published between January 2014 and June 2024. Eligible population-, community-, and hospital-based studies reporting on GIST management or prognosis in SSA were included. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Random-effects models (REML with Hartung-Knapp adjustment) were used to estimate pooled outcomes.

Results: Twenty-one studies comprising 410 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age ranged from 52 to 56 years, and the male-to-female ratio was approximately 1.3:1. The stomach was the most frequent tumor site (64.1%), followed by the small intestine (14.6%). Most patients were symptomatic at diagnosis, with abdominal pain (50.4%) and abdominal mass (47.3%) being the predominant complaints. Computed tomography was the primary imaging modality (99.5%). Surgery was performed in 70% of patients, with R0 resection achieved in 68.2%. Imatinib was used as neoadjuvant (n = 58), adjuvant (n = 64), or palliative therapy (n = 75). Among 199 evaluable patients, the pooled…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 410 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free