PURPOSE: Small intestinal (SI) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have heterogeneous outcomes. The NET societies have recently proposed a TNM staging classification. In this study, we used population-based data to assess the validity of the staging system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with SI-NETS diagnosed between 1988 and 2009 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess disease-specific survival according to TNM status. Cox models were constructed to evaluate differences in prognosis after controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 6,792 patients with SI-NET. Although the current staging system was predictive of prognosis, there was overlap among some groups (stage I/IIA, P = .36; stage IIB/IIIB, P = .70). Additionally, stage IIIB patients had better survival than stage IIIA patients (P < .001). Adjusted analyses showed similar outcomes for T1 versus T2 disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.66). Patients with T3 (HR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.28 to 5.69) and T4 (HR, 5.50; 95% CI, 3.42 to 8.86) tumors had significantly worse survival than patients with T1 disease. N1 involvement conferred worse survival in T1 (HR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.75 to 5.44) and T2 disease (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.84 to 4.07) but not in T3 (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.30) or T4 (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.35) disease. A revised classification showed no overlap in survival across groups. CONCLUSION: Progressively more advanced T status is associated with worse SI-NET prognosis. Regional lymph node involvement is a marker of worse survival only among patients with T1 or T2 status. These results suggest that revisions to the current staging classification may be helpful.
PURPOSE: Small intestinal (SI) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have heterogeneous outcomes. The NET societies have recently proposed a TNM staging classification. In this study, we used population-based data to assess the validity of the staging system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with SI-NETS diagnosed between 1988 and 2009 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess disease-specific survival according to TNM status. Cox models were constructed to evaluate differences in prognosis after controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 6,792 patients with SI-NET. Although the current staging system was predictive of prognosis, there was overlap among some groups (stage I/IIA, P = .36; stage IIB/IIIB, P = .70). Additionally, stage IIIB patients had better survival than stage IIIA patients (P < .001). Adjusted analyses showed similar outcomes for T1 versus T2 disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.66). Patients with T3 (HR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.28 to 5.69) and T4 (HR, 5.50; 95% CI, 3.42 to 8.86) tumors had significantly worse survival than patients with T1 disease. N1 involvement conferred worse survival in T1 (HR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.75 to 5.44) and T2 disease (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.84 to 4.07) but not in T3 (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.30) or T4 (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.35) disease. A revised classification showed no overlap in survival across groups. CONCLUSION: Progressively more advanced T status is associated with worse SI-NET prognosis. Regional lymph node involvement is a marker of worse survival only among patients with T1 or T2 status. These results suggest that revisions to the current staging classification may be helpful.
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: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan R Strosberg; Jill M Weber; Max Feldman; Domenico Coppola; Kenneth Meredith; Larry K Kvols Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Reed I Ayabe; Michael Wach; Samantha Ruff; Sean Martin; Laurence Diggs; Timothy Wiemken; Leslie Hinyard; Jeremy L Davis; Carrie Luu; Jonathan M Hernandez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michelle Kang Kim; Richard R P Warner; Stephen C Ward; Noam Harpaz; Sasan Roayaie; Myron E Schwartz; Steven Itzkowitz; Juan Wisnivesky Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Ali Zakaria; Lynna Alnimer; Gregory Byrd; Marc Piper; Michael Raphael; Bradley Warren; Michael Piper Journal: Case Rep Gastrointest Med Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Ashley K Clift; Omar Faiz; Robert Goldin; John Martin; Harpreet Wasan; Marc-Olaf Liedke; Erik Schloericke; Anna Malczewska; Guido Rindi; Mark Kidd; Irvin M Modlin; Andrea Frilling Journal: Endocr Connect Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 3.335