Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2016 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6

Best prognostic factor of neuroendocrine tumors: Grade or Stage? A multidisciplinary single-center study

Pages
509–514
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between gender, age, grade, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, stage, and the number of organs impacted by metastases and overall survival.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: Currently, there is no definite consensus about the prognostic factors of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:We evaluate epidemiology, survival and especially prognostic factors in NETs.Materials and Methods: Patients who had a NET and were diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 at a tertiary care center were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between gender, age, grade, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, stage, and the number of organs impacted by metastases and overall survival.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: Currently, there is no definite consensus about the prognostic factors of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We evaluate epidemiology, survival and especially prognostic factors in NETs.Materials and Methods: Patients who had a NET and were diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 at a tertiary care center were included. Demographic data, tumor characteristics and survival rates were evaluated, retrospectively.Results: Two-hundred and thirty-three patients (123 male, 110 female; median age, 55 years [16-92 years]) took part in the study. Primary NET sites were the lung (n=56), stomach (n=50), pancreas (n=39), colorectal (n=21), small intestine (n=19), and appendix (n=19). According to the NET classification by the WHO in 2010, 60% (n=140) of patients were grade-1, 15% (n=35) were grade-2, and 25% (n=58) were grade-3. According to TNM staging, 88 patients (37.8%) were stage I, 30 patients (12.8%) were stage II, 22 patients (9.5%) were stage III, and 93 patients (39.9%) were stage IV. Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between gender, age, grade, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, stage, and the number of organs impacted by metastases and overall survival. However, with multivariate analysis only age greater than 55 years, advancing grade, and inoperable tumors were significantly associated with shortened survival. Five-year survival was 81% in grade-1, 34% in grade-2, and 9% in grade-3 NETs.Conclusion: This study is the most comprehensive study in Turkey that has evaluated NETs using a multidisciplinary approach. Also, we suggest that age, operability and especially grade rather than stage are the most important prognostic factors in NETs

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZASLAN, E., BAYRAM, F., KARACA, H., GÜRSOY, Ş., ÖZTÜRK, F., SÖZÜER, E., ABDURREZZAK, Ü., YURCİ, A., SEZGİN, G. C., YILDIRIM, A., BAŞPINAR, O., KULA, M., ÖZKAN, M. (2016). Best prognostic factor of neuroendocrine tumors: Grade or Stage? A multidisciplinary single-center study. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6, 509–514. https://ajindex.com/articles/411441

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Metz DC, Jensen RT. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: pan- creatic endocrine tumors. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1469-92. [CrossRef] Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, et al. One hundred years after "carci- noid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendo- crine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3063-72. [CrossRef] Alsina M, Marcos-Gragera R, Capdevila J, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based study of incidence and survival in Girona Province, 1994-2004. Cancer Epidemiol 2011; 35:49-54. [CrossRef] Modlin IM, Oberg K, Chung DC, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neu- roendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 61-72. [CrossRef] Scherübl H, Jensen RT, Cadiot G, Stölzel U, Klöppel G. Manage- ment of early gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3: 133-9. [CrossRef] Oberg K, Eriksson B. Endocrine tumours of the pancreas. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 19: 753-81. [CrossRef] Soga J. Early-stage carcinoids of the gastrointestinal tract: an analy- sis of 1914 reported cases. Cancer. 2005; 103: 1587-95. [CrossRef] Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. International Agency for Re- search on Cancer, 2010,
  2. Lyon. Korse CM, Taal BG, van Velthuysen ML, Visser O. Incidence and sur- vival of neuroendocrine tumours in the Netherlands according to histological grade: experience of two decades of cancer registry. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1975-83. [CrossRef] Dogan M, Yalcin B, Ozdemir NY, et al. Retrospective analysis of seventy-one patients with neuroendocrine tumor and review of the literature. Med Oncol 2012; 29: 2021-6. [CrossRef] Yildiz O, Ozguroglu M, Yanmaz T, Turna H, Serdengecti S, Dogusoy G. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: 10-year experi- ence in a single center. Med Oncol 2010; 27: 1050-6. [CrossRef] Hauso O, Gustafsson BI, Kidd M, et al. Neuroendocrine tumor epi- demiology: contrasting Norway and North America. Cancer 2008; 113: 2655-64. [CrossRef] Caldarella A, Crocetti E, Paci E. Distribution, incidence, and prognosis in neuroendocrine tumors: a population based study from a cancer registry. Pathol Oncol Res 2011; 17: 759- 63. [CrossRef] Nadler A, Cukier M, Rowsell C, et al. Ki-67 is a reliable pathological grading marker for neuroendocrine tumors. Virchows Arch 2013; 462: 501-5. [CrossRef] Scherübl H, Streller B, Stabenow R, et al. Clinically detected gas- troenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors