BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are complex tumors whose incidence is rising and whose treatment requires precise classification and risk stratification. METHOD: Selective review of the relevant literature, including recently published guidelines. RESULTS: GEP-NENs are initially classified by their degree of histological differentiation and their graded cell proliferation (Ki-67 index). In addition, there are GEP-NEN specific TNM staging protocols. The laboratory assessment includes the measurement of general tumor markers (synaptophysin, chromogranin A) as well as specific ones (hormones). The most important imaging technique for diagnosis is octreotide scintigraphy. The surgical treatment of GEP-NEN is based on oncological resection criteria whose aim is to achieve locally radical resection while preserving as much organ function as possible. Metastases, too, may be amenable to resection. The treatment options for unresectable metastases include radiofrequency ablation and chemoembolization, both of which are palliative methods of reducing tumor volume and hormone production. Other chemotherapeutic and nuclear-medical treatments can be applied depending on the extent of metastatic spread, the proliferation index, and the degree of hormone production by the tumor. CONCLUSION: The accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of GEP-NET currently gives most patients with this tumor a good prognosis, as long as it is discovered early. Early GEP-NETs have a favorable prognosis. Further advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease may result from structural changes in patient care, including the establishment of NET centers.
BACKGROUND:Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are complex tumors whose incidence is rising and whose treatment requires precise classification and risk stratification. METHOD: Selective review of the relevant literature, including recently published guidelines. RESULTS:GEP-NENs are initially classified by their degree of histological differentiation and their graded cell proliferation (Ki-67 index). In addition, there are GEP-NEN specific TNM staging protocols. The laboratory assessment includes the measurement of general tumor markers (synaptophysin, chromogranin A) as well as specific ones (hormones). The most important imaging technique for diagnosis is octreotide scintigraphy. The surgical treatment of GEP-NEN is based on oncological resection criteria whose aim is to achieve locally radical resection while preserving as much organ function as possible. Metastases, too, may be amenable to resection. The treatment options for unresectable metastases include radiofrequency ablation and chemoembolization, both of which are palliative methods of reducing tumor volume and hormone production. Other chemotherapeutic and nuclear-medical treatments can be applied depending on the extent of metastatic spread, the proliferation index, and the degree of hormone production by the tumor. CONCLUSION: The accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of GEP-NET currently gives most patients with this tumor a good prognosis, as long as it is discovered early. Early GEP-NETs have a favorable prognosis. Further advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease may result from structural changes in patient care, including the establishment of NET centers.
Authors: U Plöckinger; G Rindi; R Arnold; B Eriksson; E P Krenning; W W de Herder; A Goede; M Caplin; K Oberg; J C Reubi; O Nilsson; G Delle Fave; P Ruszniewski; H Ahlman; B Wiedenmann Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Jaap J Teunissen; Willem H Bakker; Peter P Kooij; Wouter W de Herder; Richard A Feelders; Casper H van Eijck; Jan-Paul Esser; Boen L Kam; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James C Yao; Manisha H Shah; Tetsuhide Ito; Catherine Lombard Bohas; Edward M Wolin; Eric Van Cutsem; Timothy J Hobday; Takuji Okusaka; Jaume Capdevila; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Paola Tomassetti; Marianne E Pavel; Sakina Hoosen; Tomas Haas; Jeremie Lincy; David Lebwohl; Kjell Öberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Clarisse Dromain; Thierry de Baere; Jean Lumbroso; Hubert Caillet; Agnès Laplanche; Valerie Boige; Michel Ducreux; Pierre Duvillard; Dominique Elias; Martin Schlumberger; Robert Sigal; Eric Baudin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
Authors: Jacob E Møller; Heidi M Connolly; Joseph Rubin; James B Seward; Karen Modesto; Patricia A Pellikka Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas Krieg; Sabrina Mersch; Inga Boeck; Levent Dizdar; Eberhard Weihe; Zena Hilal; Markus Krausch; Birte Möhlendick; Stefan A Topp; Roland P Piekorz; Wolfgang Huckenbeck; Nikolas H Stoecklein; Martin Anlauf; Wolfram T Knoefel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240