4.3 Article

Syndromic versus non-syndromic sporadic gastrin-producing neuroendocrine tumors of the duodenum: comparison of pathological features and biological behavior

期刊

VIRCHOWS ARCHIV
卷 468, 期 3, 页码 277-287

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-015-1890-9

关键词

Neuroendocrine tumors; Duodenum; Gastrin production; Gastrinoma; Zollinger-Ellison syndrome

资金

  1. Hensel Stiftung, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sporadic gastrin-producing neuroendocrine tumors of the duodenum present either with the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES) or with unspecific symptoms. While syndromic gastrin-producing neuroendocrine tumors often show metastases at the time of diagnosis, those without a syndrome do not. The aim of the study was to search for clinicopathological features that may distinguish the two categories of gastrin-producing duodenal tumors. In a retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical and pathological data in a series of 41 patients with syndromic (i.e., gastrinomas) or non-syndromic duodenal gastrin-producing neuroendocrine tumors (ns-gas-NETs). Twenty-four (59 %) of the 41 patients had tumors that were associated with a ZES and were classified as gastrinomas. These tumors showed a higher Ki-67 index than that of the ns-gas-NETs (1.74 vs. 0.85 %, p = 0.012). In addition, they had more lymph node metastases (75 vs. 6 %, p < 0.001) and showed liver metastases and thus presented much more frequently in TNM stage a parts per thousand yenIII (75 vs. 6 %; p < 0.001) than their non-syndromic counterparts. Gastrinomas were removed surgically, ns-gas-NETs endoscopically. We did not observe any significant differences in overall survival or recurrence of disease. Duodenal gastrinomas show no clear morphological features that distinguish them from their non-syndromic counterparts. However, the patients with gastrinomas present in a more advanced stage of disease and need surgical treatment, while non-syndromic gastrin-producing duodenal NETs may be cured by complete endoscopical removal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据