4.7 Article

Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: Reappraisal of Type in Predicting Outcome

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 13, 页码 8838-8846

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10293-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified predictors of outcome in GNET patients, finding that tumor size and grade can predict recurrence and survival. Patients with small, low-grade type III GNETs have minimal risk of progression and higher survival rates.
Background Type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) are typically managed either expectantly or endoscopically. In contrast, locoregional surgery has been recommended for patients with type III GNETs because of the risk of metastasis. This study aimed to identify predictors of outcome independent of type in a contemporary cohort of GNET patients. Methods A single-institution retrospective cohort study of 121 patients with a pathologic diagnosis of primary GNET between January 2009 and June 2019 was performed. GNETs were designated as type 1 (n = 74) if atrophic gastritis was present, or as type III (n = 47) in the absence of atrophic gastritis. Demographic, clinical, and histopathologic factors were examined using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression to assess the impact of various factors on recurrence and overall survival. Results Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 62.7 months. While there was no difference in OS in patients with different GNET types (p = 0.10), higher tumor grade (p = 0.02) and presence of nodal or distant metastases (p = 0.02) predicted worse survival on multivariable analysis. Among type III GNET patients, those with small (< 0.5 cm), grade 1 lesions (low-risk) were less likely to develop metastases (0% versus 33%, p < 0.01) and more likely to survive (100% versus 67%, p < 0.01) at 5 years. Conclusions Size and tumor grade predict recurrence and survival in patients with GNETs irrespective of type. Small, low-grade type III GNETs are associated with minimal risk of progression and may be managed accordingly.

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

4.7
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