INTRODUCTION: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) frequently metastasize prior to diagnosis. Although metastases are often identifiable on conventional imaging studies, primary tumors, particularly those in the midgut, are frequently difficult to localize preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic NETs with intact primaries were identified. Clinical and pathologic data were extracted from medical records. Primary tumors were classified as localized or occult based on preoperative imaging. The sensitivities and specificities of preoperative imaging modalities for identifying the primary tumors were calculated. Patient characteristics, tumor features, and survival in localized and occult cases were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with an intact primary tumor and metastatic disease were identified. In 28 of these patients (46%), the primary tumor could not be localized preoperatively. A median of three different preoperative imaging studies were utilized. Patients with occult primaries were more likely to have a delay (>6 mo) in surgical referral from time of onset of symptoms (57% versus 27%, P = 0.02). Among the 28 patients with occult primary tumors, 18 (64%) were found to have radiographic evidence of mesenteric lymphadenopathy corresponding, in all but one case, to a small bowel primary. In all but three patients (89%), the primary tumor could be identified intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: The primary tumor can be identified intraoperatively in a majority of patients with metastatic NETs, irrespective of preoperative localization status. Referral for surgical management should not, therefore, be influenced by the inability to localize the primary tumor.
INTRODUCTION:Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) frequently metastasize prior to diagnosis. Although metastases are often identifiable on conventional imaging studies, primary tumors, particularly those in the midgut, are frequently difficult to localize preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with metastatic NETs with intact primaries were identified. Clinical and pathologic data were extracted from medical records. Primary tumors were classified as localized or occult based on preoperative imaging. The sensitivities and specificities of preoperative imaging modalities for identifying the primary tumors were calculated. Patient characteristics, tumor features, and survival in localized and occult cases were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with an intact primary tumor and metastatic disease were identified. In 28 of these patients (46%), the primary tumor could not be localized preoperatively. A median of three different preoperative imaging studies were utilized. Patients with occult primaries were more likely to have a delay (>6 mo) in surgical referral from time of onset of symptoms (57% versus 27%, P = 0.02). Among the 28 patients with occult primary tumors, 18 (64%) were found to have radiographic evidence of mesenteric lymphadenopathy corresponding, in all but one case, to a small bowel primary. In all but three patients (89%), the primary tumor could be identified intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: The primary tumor can be identified intraoperatively in a majority of patients with metastatic NETs, irrespective of preoperative localization status. Referral for surgical management should not, therefore, be influenced by the inability to localize the primary tumor.
Authors: Kendall J Keck; Jessica E Maxwell; Yusuf Menda; Andrew Bellizzi; Joseph Dillon; Thomas M O'Dorisio; James R Howe Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: James R Howe; Kenneth Cardona; Douglas L Fraker; Electron Kebebew; Brian R Untch; Yi-Zarn Wang; Calvin H Law; Eric H Liu; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Brian G Morse; Emily K Bergsland; Jonathan R Strosberg; Eric K Nakakura; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Ajaykumar C Morani; Shiva Gupta; Khaled M Elsayes; Ahmad I Mubarak; Ahmed M Khalaf; Priya R Bhosale; Jia Sun; Corey T Jensen; Vikas Kundra Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Epameinondas Dogeas; Georgios Karagkounis; Christopher M Heaphy; Kenzo Hirose; Timothy M Pawlik; Christopher L Wolfgang; Alan Meeker; Ralph H Hruban; John L Cameron; Michael A Choti Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Scott K Sherman; Jessica E Maxwell; Jennifer C Carr; Donghong Wang; Andrew M Bellizzi; M Sue O'Dorisio; Thomas M O'Dorisio; James R Howe Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Rachel P Riechelmann; Rui F Weschenfelder; Frederico P Costa; Aline Chaves Andrade; Alessandro Bersch Osvaldt; Ana Rosa P Quidute; Allan Dos Santos; Ana Amélia O Hoff; Brenda Gumz; Carlos Buchpiguel; Bruno S Vilhena Pereira; Delmar Muniz Lourenço Junior; Duilio Reis da Rocha Filho; Eduardo Antunes Fonseca; Eduardo Linhares Riello Mello; Fabio Ferrari Makdissi; Fabio Luiz Waechter; Francisco Cesar Carnevale; George B Coura-Filho; Gustavo Andrade de Paulo; Gustavo Colagiovanni Girotto; João Evangelista Bezerra Neto; João Glasberg; Jose Claudio Casali-da-Rocha; Juliana Florinda M Rego; Luciana Rodrigues de Meirelles; Ludhmila Hajjar; Marcos Menezes; Marcello D Bronstein; Marcelo Tatit Sapienza; Maria Candida Barisson Villares Fragoso; Maria Adelaide Albergaria Pereira; Milton Barros; Nora Manoukian Forones; Paulo Cezar Galvão do Amaral; Raphael Salles Scortegagna de Medeiros; Raphael L C Araujo; Regis Otaviano França Bezerra; Renata D'Alpino Peixoto; Samuel Aguiar; Ulysses Ribeiro; Tulio Pfiffer; Paulo M Hoff; Anelisa K Coutinho Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2017-01-26