4.4 Review

A Fuller Understanding of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours Combined with Aggressive Management Improves Outcome

Journal

PANCREATOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 583-600

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1159/000212085

Keywords

Pancreas; Neuroendocrine tumours; Endocrine tumours; Gastroenteropancreatic system; Carcinoid; Insulinoma; Gastrinoma; Vipoma; Glucagonoma; Islet cell

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas (PNETs) represent 1-2% of all pancreatic tumours. The terms 'islet cell tumours' and 'carcinoids' of the pancreas should be avoided. The aim of this review is to offer an overview of the history and diagnosis of PNETs followed by a discussion of the available treatment options. Methods: A search on PubMed using the keywords 'neuroendocrine', 'pancreas' and 'carcinoid' was performed to identify relevant literature over the last 30 years. Results: The introduction of a revised classification of neuroendocrine tumours by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2000 significantly changed our understanding of and approach to the management of these tumours. Advances in laboratory and radiological techniques have also led to an increased detection of PNETs. Surgery remains the only treatment that offers a chance of cure with increasing number of non-surgical options serving as beneficial adjuncts. The better understanding of the behaviours of PNETs together with improvements in tumour localisation has resulted in a more aggressive management strategy with a concomitant improvement in symptom palliation and a prolongation of survival. Conclusion: Due to their complex nature and the wide range of therapeutic options, the involvement of specialists from all necessary disciplines in a multidisciplinary team setting is vital to provide optimal treatment of this disease. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel and IAP

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