OBJECTIVES: Currently, no reasonable staging system exists for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) to guide treating physicians. The aim of this study was to devise a staging system of relevant prognostic factors to better predict overall survival in PNET. METHODS: A prospective 300 patient cohort and a review of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database identified 6,447 patients with PNET from 1973 to 2008. Significant prognostic factors were created for an initial. Tumor: T (T1: ≤3 cm and localized to pancreas, T2: >3 cm and localized to the pancreas; T3: extension to adjacent organs and vessels), grade: G (G1: well/moderate and G2: poor/undifferentiated), and metastasis: M (M0: no distant mets, M1: distant mets) staging system. RESULTS: Significant predictors of survival on multivariate analysis included age, size, grade, and metastasis. Based on the TGM staging system: stage 1 (T1-2, G1, M0), stage 2 (T1-2, G2, M0), stage 3 (T3G2M0, Tany, G1, M1), stage 4: (Tany, G2, M1) was created with survival being statistically different between stages (p < 0.0001). Median survival rates were stage 1, 55 months; stage 2, 50 months; stage 3, 46 months; and stage 4, 25 months. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of this newly developed staging system into clinical practice will improve the ability to predict prognosis and aid in stratification of patients for clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: Currently, no reasonable staging system exists for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) to guide treating physicians. The aim of this study was to devise a staging system of relevant prognostic factors to better predict overall survival in PNET. METHODS: A prospective 300 patient cohort and a review of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database identified 6,447 patients with PNET from 1973 to 2008. Significant prognostic factors were created for an initial. Tumor: T (T1: ≤3 cm and localized to pancreas, T2: >3 cm and localized to the pancreas; T3: extension to adjacent organs and vessels), grade: G (G1: well/moderate and G2: poor/undifferentiated), and metastasis: M (M0: no distant mets, M1: distant mets) staging system. RESULTS: Significant predictors of survival on multivariate analysis included age, size, grade, and metastasis. Based on the TGM staging system: stage 1 (T1-2, G1, M0), stage 2 (T1-2, G2, M0), stage 3 (T3G2M0, Tany, G1, M1), stage 4: (Tany, G2, M1) was created with survival being statistically different between stages (p < 0.0001). Median survival rates were stage 1, 55 months; stage 2, 50 months; stage 3, 46 months; and stage 4, 25 months. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of this newly developed staging system into clinical practice will improve the ability to predict prognosis and aid in stratification of patients for clinical trials.
Authors: Christine S Landry; Guy Brock; Charles R Scoggins; Kelly M McMasters; Robert C G Martin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R Bettini; L Boninsegna; W Mantovani; P Capelli; C Bassi; P Pederzoli; G F Delle Fave; F Panzuto; A Scarpa; M Falconi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Ryan P Merkow; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; Clifford Y Ko; Mark S Talamonti Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-08-03 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: G Rindi; G Klöppel; H Alhman; M Caplin; A Couvelard; W W de Herder; B Erikssson; A Falchetti; M Falconi; P Komminoth; M Körner; J M Lopes; A-M McNicol; O Nilsson; A Perren; A Scarpa; J-Y Scoazec; B Wiedenmann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Hanno Matthaei; Dennis Wylie; Maura B Lloyd; Marco Dal Molin; Jon Kemppainen; Skye C Mayo; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; Laura Langfield; Bernard F Andruss; Alex T Adai; Ralph H Hruban; Anna E Szafranska-Schwarzbach; Anirban Maitra Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David J Worhunsky; Geoffrey W Krampitz; Peter D Poullos; Brendan C Visser; Pamela L Kunz; George A Fisher; Jeffrey A Norton; George A Poultsides Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Christina L Roland; Aihua Bian; John C Mansour; Adam C Yopp; Glen C Balch; Rohit Sharma; Xian-Jin Xie; Roderich E Schwarz Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Trevor A Ellison; Christopher L Wolfgang; Chanjuan Shi; John L Cameron; Peter Murakami; Liew Jun Mun; Aatur D Singhi; Toby C Cornish; Kelly Olino; Zina Meriden; Michael Choti; Luis A Diaz; Timothy M Pawlik; Richard D Schulick; Ralph H Hruban; Barish H Edil Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Muslim Atiq; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehmet Bektas; Jeffrey E Lee; Yun Gong; Eric P Tamm; Chintan P Shah; William A Ross; James Yao; Gottumukkala S Raju; Xuemei Wang; Jeffrey H Lee Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Nicholas A Hamilton; Ta-Chiang Liu; Antonino Cavatiao; Kareem Mawad; Ling Chen; Steven S Strasberg; David C Linehan; Dengfeng Cao; William G Hawkins Journal: Surgery Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 3.982