4.6 Article

Incidence and risk factors of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasm metastasis in liver, lung, bone, and brain: A population-based study

Journal

CANCER MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 17, Pages 7288-7298

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2567

Keywords

gastrointestinal; metastases; neuroendocrine neoplasms; SEER

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Neuroendocrine neoplasm is a rare solid tumor. Metastatic pattern of the gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasm (GI-NEN) has not been fully explored. Methods Data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (SEER-9 registry) from 1973 to 2015. Incidence was estimated by Joinpoint regression analyses. Data with additional treatment fields of GI-NEN were extracted from the SEER-18 registry from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015. A total of 14 685 GI-NEN patients were included in this study. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 25.0, the Intercooled Stata SE 15.0, and GraphPad Prism 7. Results Incidence of GI-NENs increased from 0.51 per 100 000 patients in 1973 to 6.20 per 100 000 patients in 2015. Of them, 2003 patients were stage IV GI-NEN at the time of diagnosis, including 1459 (72.84%) patients with liver metastasis, 144 (7.19%) lung metastasis, 115 (5.74%) bone metastasis, and 27 (1.35%) brain metastasis. Esophageal NEN had the highest risk of metastasis (52.68%). The median survival for patients with liver, lung, bone, and brain metastasis was 38, 6, 9, and 2 months, respectively. The presence of lung or liver metastasis indicated higher risk of concurrent existence of bone and brain metastasis than those without. Conclusion Bone and brain metastasis should be screened in the GI-NEN patients if they had lung or liver metastasis. Findings of the current study could help clinicians to identify distant metastasis of GI-NENs as early as possible, and by which, to improve survival rate of GI-NENs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available