Martin B Niederle1, Bruno Niederle. 1. Section of Endocrine Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gür, Austria. martin.niederle@meduniwien.ac.at
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: G Rindi; G Klöppel; A Couvelard; 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: 2007-08-03 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Hakan Ahlman; Ola Nilsson; Anne M McNicol; Philippe Ruszniewski; Bruno Niederle; Jens Ricke; Robert Jensen; Beata Kos-Kudła; Kjell Oberg; Juan M O'Connor; Marianne E Pavel; Marie-Pierre Vullierme Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Joseph Rubin; Michael B Farnell; Clive S Grant; Gloria M Petersen Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: C Lombard-Bohas; E Mitry; D O'Toole; C Louvet; D Pillon; G Cadiot; F Borson-Chazot; T Aparicio; M Ducreux; T Lecomte; P L Etienne; W Cacheux; J L Legoux; J F Seitz; P Ruszniewski; J A Chayvialle; P Rougier Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2008-08-22 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: M Krausch; A Raffel; M Anlauf; M Schott; N Lehwald; A Krieg; F Kröpil; K Cupisti; W T Knoefel Journal: Endocrine Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Andreas Selberherr; Oskar Koperek; Philipp Riss; Christian Scheuba; Reto Kaderli; Aurel Perren; Bruno Niederle Journal: Endocr Pathol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.943