4.4 Article

Prognostic factors influencing survival from metastatic (stage IV) gastroenteropancreatic well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma

Journal

ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 585-597

Publisher

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1677/ERC-08-0301

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Survival of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma (GEP WDEC) is not well characterized. We evaluated the long-term outcome and prognostic factors for survival in 118 patients with distant metastases from GEP WDEC. Inclusion criteria were 1) pathological review by a single pathologist according to the present WHO criteria, 2) absence of previous therapy apart from surgery, 3) complete morphological evaluation within 3 months including somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, and 4) follow-up at Gustave-Roussy Institute until death or study's end Clinical, biological marker, and pathological parameters were analyzed in univariate and multivariate statistical models. Survival after the first complete imaging work-up of the metastatic disease was determined using Kaplan-Meier method. Overall, survival for 5 years after the diagnosis of metastatic disease was 54%. In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR): 1 05, 95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.01-1 08, P = 0.01), the number of liver metastases (HR: 3.4, 95% CI 1 4-8 32 P = 0 01), tumor slope (HR. 1.1, 95% Cl: 1.0-1.1, P = 0 001), and initial surgery (HR: 0.3, 95% Cl. 0.1-0.8, P = 0.01) were predictive of survival. Five-year survival was 100%, 91% (95% Cl, 51-98%), 62% (95% Cl, 37-83%), and 9% (95% Cl, 6-32%) when patients had 0, 1, 2, 3 or more poor prognostic features respectively. This study enables the stratification of metastatic GEP WDEC patients into distinct risk groups These risk categories can be used to tailor therapeutic approaches and also to design and interpret clinical trials

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