4.3 Review

The European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) lung neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) database

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages S3528-+

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.04.104

Keywords

Lung; neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); outcome; retrospective database; prospective database

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Histological characteristics and clinical behaviour define lung neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), which are classified into four groups: typical (TC) and atypical carcinoids (AC), large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNCs) and small-cell lung cancers (SCLCs). Historically, outcome and treatment of these rare neoplasms have been based on small, usually mono-institutional clinical series. Furthermore, their rarity makes quite impossible to design randomised clinical trial to compare different treatments especially in unusual clinical presentations. In 2012, the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) launched a new working-group, specifically dedicated to lung NETs, with the aim to develop modern knowledge on biology and behaviour of these tumors, and to disseminate it within the scientific community. A dedicated retrospective database was at first developed and sent to all the ESTS centres interested to this project. More than 2,000 operated NETs cases have been rapidly collected, and they represented the clinical substrate of several published scientific studies. The retrospective data collection intrinsic limitations in term of patients' selection and treatment, along with the problem of possible missing data, were the reasons why the ESTS NETs working-group decided in 2015 to design and promote a new prospective database, employing the official ESTS platform. The aim of this review paper is to report the ESTS Lung NETs working-group history and to explain the architecture and use of the lung NETs databases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available