4.4 Article

Type I Gastric Carcinoids: A Prospective Study on Endoscopic Management and Recurrence Rate

Journal

NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 3, Pages 207-213

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000329043

Keywords

Gastric carcinoid; Atrophic gastritis; Recurrence; Follow-up; Endoscopic management

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry for University and Research
  2. 'Sapienza' University of Rome, Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Type I gastric carcinoids (TIGCs) are neuroendocrine neoplasms arising from enterochromaffin-like cells in atrophic body gastritis. Data regarding their evolution in prospective series are scarce, thus treatment and follow-up are not codified. Our aim was to evaluate clinical outcome and recurrence in TIGCs managed by endoscopic approach. Methods: 33 patients (24 females; median age 65 years, range 23-81) were included and managed through endoscopic follow-up every 6-12 months, with lesion removal and multiple gastric biopsies. Baseline clinical and histological features were analyzed as risk factors by Cox regression. Results: At diagnosis, 7 tumors were intramucosal carcinoids and 26 were polyps (median diameter 5 mm, range 2-20), multiple in 17 patients. Associated severe atrophy was present in 21 cases (63.6%), while mild atrophy was found in 6 cases (18.2%). During a 46-month median follow-up, survival was 100% and no metastases occurred. One patient developed a less-differentiated carcinoid that was radically treated by surgery. 21 patients (63.6%) had recurrence after a median of 8 months, 14 of these (66.6%) had a second recurrence after a median of 8 months following the previous carcinoid removal. Median recurrence-free survival was 24 months. Neither clinical nor biochemical recurrence-predicting factors were found. Conclusions: Although about 60% of TIGCs had recurrence after endoscopic resection, endoscopic management may be considered safe and effective. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available