BACKGROUND: The management of 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoid tumors remains controversial. Here we use the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to compare long-term outcomes for patients treated via resection of the primary tumor alone vs right hemicolectomy (RHC). STUDY DESIGN: The 1998 to 2011 NCDB User File was queried to identify patients with 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoids. Patients were stratified by surgical technique: resection of the primary tumor alone vs RHC with regional lymphadenectomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare short-term outcomes. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with comparisons based on the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 916 patients were identified, including 42% managed with primary resection and 58% with RHC. Patients who underwent RHC had slightly larger tumors and higher-stage tumors; otherwise, there were no baseline differences between groups. The rates of positive margins were similar (5.5% vs 4.5%; p = 0.60). Among all patients, 1- and 5-year survival were 98.1% and 88.7% vs 96.7% and 87.4% (p = 0.52) for those managed via primary resection vs RHC, respectively. Among patients with moderate/high-grade/anaplastic carcinoids, 1- and 5-year survival were 93.3% and 72.0% vs 92.3% and 71.9%, respectively (p = 0.78). After adjustment with Cox proportional hazards modeling, we confirmed that there was no survival benefit for patients undergoing RHC (hazard ratio = 1.14; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: For 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoids, formal resection of the right colon does not appear to improve survival, even for higher-grade tumors. Our findings suggest that resection of the primary tumor alone is adequate for all carcinoids <2 cm.
BACKGROUND: The management of 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoid tumors remains controversial. Here we use the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to compare long-term outcomes for patients treated via resection of the primary tumor alone vs right hemicolectomy (RHC). STUDY DESIGN: The 1998 to 2011 NCDB User File was queried to identify patients with 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoids. Patients were stratified by surgical technique: resection of the primary tumor alone vs RHC with regional lymphadenectomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare short-term outcomes. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with comparisons based on the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 916 patients were identified, including 42% managed with primary resection and 58% with RHC. Patients who underwent RHC had slightly larger tumors and higher-stage tumors; otherwise, there were no baseline differences between groups. The rates of positive margins were similar (5.5% vs 4.5%; p = 0.60). Among all patients, 1- and 5-year survival were 98.1% and 88.7% vs 96.7% and 87.4% (p = 0.52) for those managed via primary resection vs RHC, respectively. Among patients with moderate/high-grade/anaplastic carcinoids, 1- and 5-year survival were 93.3% and 72.0% vs 92.3% and 71.9%, respectively (p = 0.78). After adjustment with Cox proportional hazards modeling, we confirmed that there was no survival benefit for patients undergoing RHC (hazard ratio = 1.14; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: For 1- to 2-cm appendiceal carcinoids, formal resection of the right colon does not appear to improve survival, even for higher-grade tumors. Our findings suggest that resection of the primary tumor alone is adequate for all carcinoids <2 cm.
Authors: Danielle R Heller; Raymond A Jean; Jiajun Luo; Vadim Kurbatov; Gabriella Grisotti; Daniel Jacobs; Alexander S Chiu; Yawei Zhang; Sajid A Khan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shayna Brathwaite; Jonathan Rock; Martha M Yearsley; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Lai Wei; Wendy L Frankel; John Hays; Christina Wu; Sherif Abdel-Misih Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Richard J Straker; Samuel Z Grinberg; Cimarron E Sharon; Adrienne B Shannon; Douglas L Fraker; Skandan Shanmugan; John T Miura; Giorgos C Karakousis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rongzhi Wang; Rui Zheng-Pywell; H Alexander Chen; James A Bibb; Herbert Chen; J Bart Rose Journal: Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes Date: 2019-10-24
Authors: Shayna Brathwaite; Martha M Yearsley; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Lai Wei; Carl R Schmidt; Mary E Dillhoff; Wendy L Frankel; John L Hays; Christina Wu; Sherif Abdel-Misih Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Lindsay A Sceats; Seul Ku; Alanna Coughran; Britainy Barnes; Emily Grimm; Matthew Muffly; David A Spain; Cindy Kin; Douglas K Owens; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2019-08-17