Ben-Yuan Deng1, Fei Liu2, Si-Neng Yin3, An-Ping Chen3, Lin Xu3, Bo Li2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, No.10, Qingyun South Street, Jinjiang District, 610017 Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: yundeduishou@163.com. 2. Department of Hepatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, No.10, Qingyun South Street, Jinjiang District, 610017 Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) has revised its grading system for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) in 2010 into three main group, which has not been widely and comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to validate the clinical valve of this system associated with the clinical outcome and long-term survival when applied to PNETs, which were rare and heterogeneous. METHODS: We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of 150 consecutive patients with PNETs who underwent a resection. RESULTS: Sixty-four males and 86 females with PNETs were enrolled in our study. The clinical stage from I to IV by European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society were respectively defined in 53, 60, 19 and 18 patients. Seventy-two patients were pathologically diagnosed as neuroendocrine tumor G1 (NET G1), 48 as neuroendocrine tumor G2 (NET G2) and 30 as neuroendocrine carcinoma G3 (NEC G3). Patients with a radical resection obtained a notably higher overall survival (OS) than that of patients who underwent a palliative surgery (P=0.001). The 5-year OS of patients with NET G1 was significantly higher than that of patients with NET G2 (P=0.015) and NEC G3 (P<0.001); the comparison of OS for patients with NET G2 and NEC G3 was also statistically significant (P=0.005). In both univariate and multivariate analysis, clinical staging by ENETS (stage I and II vs. stage III and IV), resection (radical vs. palliative) and WHO 2010 grading classification (NET G1 and G2 vs. NEC G3) were validated to be independent predictors for the survivals of PNETs. CONCLUSION: The newly-updated WHO 2010 grading classification was prognostic for the OS of PNETs and could be widely adopted in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) has revised its grading system for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) in 2010 into three main group, which has not been widely and comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to validate the clinical valve of this system associated with the clinical outcome and long-term survival when applied to PNETs, which were rare and heterogeneous. METHODS: We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of 150 consecutive patients with PNETs who underwent a resection. RESULTS: Sixty-four males and 86 females with PNETs were enrolled in our study. The clinical stage from I to IV by European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society were respectively defined in 53, 60, 19 and 18 patients. Seventy-two patients were pathologically diagnosed as neuroendocrine tumor G1 (NET G1), 48 as neuroendocrine tumor G2 (NET G2) and 30 as neuroendocrine carcinoma G3 (NEC G3). Patients with a radical resection obtained a notably higher overall survival (OS) than that of patients who underwent a palliative surgery (P=0.001). The 5-year OS of patients with NET G1 was significantly higher than that of patients with NET G2 (P=0.015) and NEC G3 (P<0.001); the comparison of OS for patients with NET G2 and NEC G3 was also statistically significant (P=0.005). In both univariate and multivariate analysis, clinical staging by ENETS (stage I and II vs. stage III and IV), resection (radical vs. palliative) and WHO 2010 grading classification (NET G1 and G2 vs. NEC G3) were validated to be independent predictors for the survivals of PNETs. CONCLUSION: The newly-updated WHO 2010 grading classification was prognostic for the OS of PNETs and could be widely adopted in clinical practice.
Authors: Masayuki Tanaka; Max Heckler; André L Mihaljevic; Pascal Probst; Ulla Klaiber; Ulrike Heger; Simon Schimmack; Markus W Büchler; Thilo Hackert Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 5.344