SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Abant Tıp Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 2

The Prognostic Parameters in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Gastrointestinal ve Pankreatik Nöroendokrin Tümörlerde Prognostik Parametreler

Gülzade ÖZYALVAÇLI
Esra PAŞAOĞLU
Erol Rüştü BOZKURT
Pages
69–73
Publication Date
2012-05-01
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)

There was not significant differences between well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor and well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas for number of mitosis p>0,05 , but poorly differantiated neuroendocrine carcinomas was significantly higher number of mitosis than the others p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed that to find the differences in prognostic parameters as diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor GEPNET cases which were classified by WHO.METHODS: Between 2001-2009 in Istanbul Educational And Research Hospital Hospital Pathology Department 41 GEPNET cases were searched according to age, gender, localization, diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis.RESULTS: Tumor diameter was 0,76±0,78 cm in benign group and 2,82±2,86 cm in malign group p=0.006 .
📊
Key Findings & Data:OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed that to find the differences in prognostic parameters as diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor GEPNET cases which were classified by WHO.METHODS: Between 2001-2009 in Istanbul Educational And Research Hospital Hospital Pathology Department 41 GEPNET cases were searched according to age, gender, localization, diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis.RESULTS: Tumor diameter was 0,76±0,78 cm in benign group and 2,82±2,86 cm in malign group p=0.006 .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There was not significant differences between well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor and well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas for number of mitosis p>0,05 , but poorly differantiated neuroendocrine carcinomas was significantly higher number of mitosis than the others p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001-2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:gastroenteropankreatik · nöroendokrin · tümör

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed that to find the differences in prognostic parameters as diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor GEPNET cases which were classified by WHO.METHODS: Between 2001-2009 in Istanbul Educational And Research Hospital Hospital Pathology Department 41 GEPNET cases were searched according to age, gender, localization, diameter, mitosis, necrosis, angiolymphatic invasion, perinoral invasion and lymph node metastasis.RESULTS: Tumor diameter was 0,76±0,78 cm in benign group and 2,82±2,86 cm in malign group p=0.006 . There was not significant differences between well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor and well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas for number of mitosis p>0,05 , but poorly differantiated neuroendocrine carcinomas was significantly higher number of mitosis than the others p

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada, WHO’ya göre klasifiye edilen Gastroenteropankreatik nöroendokrin tümörler GEPNET olgularında; çap, mitoz, nekroz, anjiyolenfatik invazyon, perinöral invazyon ve lenf nodu metastazı gibi prognostik parametreler açısından tümör grupları arasındaki farklılıkların ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır.YÖNTEMLER: 2001-2009 yılları arasında İstanbul Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Patoloji Bölümünde tanı alan 41 adet gastroenteropankreatik nöroendokrin tümör olgusu yaş, cinsiyet, lokalizasyon, çap, mitoz, nekroz, anjiyolenfatik invazyon, perinöral invazyon ve lenf nodu metastazı durumu açısından incelendi.BULGULAR: Tümör çapı benign grupta 0,76±0,78 cm olup malign grupta 2,82±2,86 cm olarak saptandı p=0.006 . İyi diferansiye tümör grubu ile iyi diferansiye karsinom grubu arasında mitoz sayısı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmazken p>0,05 , az diferansiye karsinom grubunda bu parametre diğer gruplardan anlamlı olarak yüksek bulunmuştur p

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZYALVAÇLI, G., PAŞAOĞLU, E., BOZKURT, E. R. (2012). The Prognostic Parameters in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Abant Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 2, 69–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/449257

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Alexiev BA, Drachenberg CB, Papadimitriou JC. Endocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas: Grading, tumor size and proliferation index do not predict malignant behavior. Diagn Pathol 2007, 2:28. Modlin IM, Shapiro MD, Kidd M. Siegfried Obendorfer: origins and perspective of carcinoid tumors. Hum Pathol 2004: 35:1440- 51 Grame-Cook F, Neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and appendix. In: Odse RD, Goldblum JR. Surgical Pathology of the GI Tract, Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas. 2nd reved. Philadelphia, 2009: 653-693
  2. Klöppel G, Rindi G, Anlauf M, Perren A, Komminoth P. Site- specific biology and pathology of gastroenteropancreatic neuro- endocrine tumors. Virchows Arch. 2007;451 Suppl 1:S9-27. Van Gompel JJ, Sippel RS, Warner TF, Chen H. Gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors: factors that predict outcome. World J Surg. 2004;28:387-92. Rorstad O. prognostic indicators for cardinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. J. Surg. Oncol 2005;89:151- 160 Oberg K, Akerström G, Rindi G, Jelic S; ESMO Guidelines Wor- king Group. Neuroendocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumours: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010;21 Suppl 5:v223-7. Estrozi B, Bacchi CE. Neuroendocrine tumors involving the gastroenteropancreatic tract: a clinicopathological evaluation of 773 cases. Clinics(Sau Paulo),2011;66:1671-5 Rindi G. The ENETS guidelines: The new TNM classification system. Tumori 2010;96:806-809 Soga J: Early-stage carcinoids of the gastrointestinal tract: An analysis of 1914 reported cases. Cancer 2005; 103:1587-1595.
  3. Xie SD, Vang LB, Song XY, Pan T. Minute gastric carcinoid tumour with regional lymph node metastasis: a case report and review of literature. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:2461-3
  4. Kumashiro R, Naitoh H, Teshima K et al. Minute gastric carci- noid tumor with regional lymph node metastasis. Int Surg 1989;74:198-200
  5. Hochwald SN, Zee S, Conlon KC, Colleoni R, Louie O, Brennan MF, Klimstra DS: Prognostic factors in pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: An analysis of 136 cases with a proposal for lowgrade and intermediate-grade groups. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:2633-2642.
  6. Strosberg J, Nasir A, Coppola D, Wick M, Kvols L. Correlation between grade and prognosis in metastatic gastroenteropancre- atic neuroendocrine tumors. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:1262-8.
  7. Rindi G, Kloppel G. Endocrine tumors of the gut and pancreas tumor biology and classification. Neuroendocrinology 2004;1:12- 15 Solcia E,