Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Current Data on a Prospectively Collected, Retrospectively Analyzed Clinical Multicenter Investigation

Background. The aim of this prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed clinical investigation was to describe unmasked clinical symptoms and methods of diagnosis, treatment, and short-term follow-up of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) diagnosed during 1 year in Austria. Methods. In total, 277 patients with GEP-NETs were documented. All tumors were immunhistochemically defined according to recently summarized criteria (World Health Organization, European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society). A standardized questionnaire comprising 50 clinical and biochemical parameters (clinical symptoms, mode of diagnosis, treatment, follow-up) was completed by attending physicians. Results. The most common initial symptoms were episodes of abdominal pain, diarrhea, weight loss, gastrointestinal bleeding, flushing, and bowel obstruction. Overall, 48.1% of tumors were diagnosed by endoscopy, 43.7% were diagnosed during surgery, 5% were diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration of the primary or metastases, and 2.5% were diagnosed during autopsy; 44.5% of tumors were not suspected clinically and were diagnosed incidentally during various surgical procedures. Overall, 18.7% of tumors were removed endoscopically and 67.6% were removed surgically; 13.7% of patients were followed without interventional treatment. Endoscopic or surgical intervention was curative in 81.4% of patients and palliative in 18.6% of patients. At the time of diagnosis, information on metastasis was available in 83.7% of patients with malignant NETs. Lymph node or distant metastases were documented in 74.7% of patients. In 19.3% of patients, 41 secondary tumors were documented, with 78.0% classified histologically as adenocarcinomas. Conclusion. This investigation summarizes the clinical presentation and current practice of management of GEP-NETs and thereby extends the understanding and clinical experience. The Oncologist 2011;16:602-613