Literature DB >> 31649320

Impact of neuroendocrine morphology on cancer outcomes and stage at diagnosis: a UK nationwide cohort study 2013-2015.

Tracey S E Genus1,2, Catherine Bouvier3, Kwok F Wong4, Rajaventhan Srirajaskanthan5,6, Brian A Rous7, Denis C Talbot8, Juan W Valle9, Mohid Khan10, Neil Pearce11, Mona Elshafie12, Nicholas S Reed13, Eileen Morgan14, Andrew Deas15, Ceri White16, Dyfed Huws16, John Ramage5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is often delayed. This first UK population-based epidemiological study of NENs compares outcomes with non-NENs to identify any inequalities.
METHODS: Age-standardised incidence rate (ASR), 1-year overall survival, hazard ratios and standardised mortality rates (SMRs) were calculated for all malignant NENs diagnosed 2013-2015 from UK national Public Health records. Comparison with non-NENs assessed 1-year overall survival (1YS) and association between diagnosis at stage IV and morphology.
RESULTS: A total of 15,222 NENs were identified, with an ASR (2013-2015 combined) of 8.6 per 100,000 (95% CI 8.5-8.7); 4.6 per 100 000 (95% CI, 4.5-4.7) for gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) NENs. The 1YS was 75% (95% CI, 73.9-75.4) varying significantly by sex. Site and morphology were prognostic. NENs (predominantly small cell carcinomas) in the oesophagus, bladder, prostate, and female reproductive organs had a poorer outcome and were three times more likely to be diagnosed at stage IV than non-NENs.
CONCLUSION: Advanced stage at diagnosis with significantly poorer outcomes of some NENs compared with non-NENs at the same anatomical site, highlight the need for improved access to specialist services and targeted service improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31649320      PMCID: PMC6889414          DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0606-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


Background

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) occur throughout the body, the most common sites including pulmonary, digestive and skin. NENs range from well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) to poorly differentiated carcinomas (NECs, small- and large-cell type) (World Health Organisation [WHO] Classification 2017) having varying potential, low grade and indolent to high grade and aggressive. The heterogeneous clinical presentation and biology of NENs cause significant challenges in diagnosis and management,[1] with NENs often misdiagnosed, or diagnosis frequently delayed.[2] The UK cancer registries in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland systematically collect high quality histologically confirmed and validated data on all malignant cancers diagnosed. However, previous coding systems have made comprehensive isolation of NEN data for epidemiological studies impossible. Registration in the ICD-O-3 (combined topology and morphology) coding system for cases diagnosed from 2013 onward,[3] and TNM staging of GEP-NENs from 2010[4] have now allowed the first descriptive epidemiological study of NENs diagnosed in the UK, and the first analysis by TNM stage. The aim of this study was to determine the epidemiology of NENs diagnosed in the UK, and to ascertain whether there are any disparities in outcomes between NENs and non-NENs at the same anatomical site.

Methods

Study population

A comprehensive population-based cohort study was undertaken for all persons diagnosed with NENs in the UK between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015 with follow-up to the week commencing 12 January 2017, using patient-level data collected by Public Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (PHE NCRAS), and pseudo-anonymised data from NHS National Services Scotland, Public Health Wales Welsh Cancer Intelligence & Surveillance Unit and Public Health Agency Queen’s University Belfast. These registries had coverage of a 2015 mid-year total population of 65,110,000. Socioeconomic status (not available for Scotland) was measured by deprivation quintiles based on: area deprivation for England and N. Ireland, produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (formerly the Department for Communities and Local Government); and aspects of deprivation experienced in income for Wales, produced by the Welsh Government using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. English data for non-NENs was also available for comparison.

Tumour classification

NENs were defined by the WHO 2015 classification excluding diffuse pulmonary neuroendocrine hyperplasia. Tumours occurring at all anatomical sites between C00 and C80 according to the 10th edition of the WHO International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) codes were included, and morphology codes included 8013 (excluding lung [C34 and C78]), 8041–8045 (excluding lung), 8150–8158, 8240–8247, 8249 and 9091 according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3). All were behaviour code 3 (malignant), 6 (metastatic) or 9 (malignant, uncertain whether primary or metastatic). Tumours were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging for NENs[5] and the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) recommendations for the staging of GEP-NENs[6] and graded using the ENETS grading system (WHO 2010) for GEP-NENs,[7-9] or according to pathological grading of differentiation for other sites. Ki-67 status was not uniformly captured and is not recognised yet in many organ systems. Due to this being a registry study, we were unable to revisit each tissue specimen to acquire it, most grades were therefore based on a morphology of “poorly differentiated” or “well-differentiated” so grade 1 and grade 2 were combined to reduce inaccuracies. Tumour grades were classified: grade 1 and grade 2 combined—NET G1/G2 (functioning tumours including insulinomas, glucagonomas etc. with morphology codes 8150–8153, 8155–8158 and tumours with morphology codes 8240–8242, 8249, and 9091); grade 3—NEC G3 (large cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, combined small cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma NOS with morphology codes 8013, 8041–8045, and 8246); Mixed Adeno-Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (MANEC) (Now known as ‘goblet cell adenocarcinomas’) goblet cell carcinoid, mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, tubular adenocarcinoid tumour with morphology codes 8243–8245); and “other” (pancreatic endocrine tumour malignant, mixed pancreatic endocrine and exocrine tumour malignant, and Merkel cell carcinoma morphology codes 8150, 8154 and 8247, respectively).

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using STATA/MP 15.1 for Windows software program. ASRs for the UK 2013–2015 combined, UK 2013–2015 annual and 2001–2015 time series (England only) were calculated using ICD-O-2 codes for diagnoses between 2001 and 2012 (morphology codes 8013 [large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma], and 8249 [atypical carcinoid tumour] were not available), 1971–2015 mid-year population estimates Office of National Statistics (ONS) data,[10] and the 2013 European standard population. Of the cohort, 15,106 persons were included in survival and mortality analyses, excluding those with a death certificate only registration and including the first tumour in those with multiple tumours, or the tumour with known stage if multiple tumours had the same diagnosis date. 1-year overall survival (1YS) estimates (also for non-NENs) were made using the Kaplan–Meier method with log rank tests. Multivariable survival analysis using Cox (proportional hazards) regression and likelihood ratios were performed with the model adjusting for clinically relevant independent variables sex, age, stage, site, morphology, grade, deprivation and year of diagnosis (all assessed for significant association with overall survival at p < 0.05). Standardised mortality rates, for those diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015, for all-cause mortality over the disease duration, adjusting for explanatory variables age, sex and calendar period, were calculated by means of the life-table approach using ONS death registrations, including persons aged 0–100 years.[11,12] Multiple logistic regression estimated the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for association of diagnosis at stage IV with morphology (NEN or non-NEN), for all people diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2015 in England, adjusting for sex and age. Vital status on 1 January 2017 was acquired from ONS.

Results

Patients

Overall, 15,145 persons were diagnosed with 15,222 NENs between 2013 and 2015, of which 7,640 (50.4%) were female. The average age at diagnosis was 65–69 years old with variation between sites (Table 1). The median follow-up time was 19.6 months (range 0–49.2 months) and 24.8% (3,766) died within one year of diagnosis.
Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics table

Morphology sparklines: represents the distribution of morphologies by site, the darkest column the most frequent morphology

C neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumour, S small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, N neuroendocrine carcinoma, M merkel cell carcinoma, O other, NEC G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma grade 3, n number of patients, N/A not applicable

aProportion of those with known stage

bFemales

cNon-melanoma skin cancers are not currently staged

Demographic and clinical characteristics table Morphology sparklines: represents the distribution of morphologies by site, the darkest column the most frequent morphology C neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumour, S small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, N neuroendocrine carcinoma, M merkel cell carcinoma, O other, NEC G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma grade 3, n number of patients, N/A not applicable aProportion of those with known stage bFemales cNon-melanoma skin cancers are not currently staged

Tumours

The most common primary tumour sites were pulmonary 20%, small intestine 13%, appendix 12%, pancreas 9%, skin 7%, colon and caecum 5%, stomach 5%, rectum 4%, bladder 3% and oesophagus 3%. Stage distribution was 37% localised (18% stage I, 9% stage II and 11% stage III), 23% metastasised (stage IV) and 39% unknown. Around 42% of the neoplasms were NETs, 28% neuroendocrine carcinomas and 9% small cell carcinomas. Nearly half of the tumours (48%) were low grade (grade 1 or 2) and over a third (35%) high grade (grade 3), the remaining tumours were MANEC (3.5%) and other (13%). Tumour breakdown by proportion of stage IV, grade 3 and by morphology for the most common sites is shown in Table 1.

Incidence

The UK ASR was 8.6 per 100,000 (2013–2015 combined), 8.1 in females and 9.1 in males; 4.6 for GEP-NENs overall, the second most common gastrointestinal tumour.[13] Incidence by other sites are listed in Table 2.
Table 2

NEN incidence, 1-year overall survival probability, multivariable analysis and mortality in the UK (2013–2015 combined)

VariablesTumour countIncidenceSurvivalaMortalitya
Age-standardised rate (ASR) (CI) (per 100,000 persons)1-year overall survival (Kaplan-–Meier) (CI)Cox proportional hazards regression multi-variable (CI)Observed/ expected deathsStandardised mortality ratio (SMR) (CI)
All15,2228.6 (8.46–8.74)74.7 (73.9–75.4)5233/1442.63.6 (3.5–3.7)
Sex175389.14 (8.93–9.35)71.3 (70.3–72.4)1 (reference)2884/821.53.5 (3.4–3.6)
276848.06 (7.88–8.24)77.9 (76.9–78.8)0.9 (0.8–0.9)2349/621.13.8 (3.6–3.9)
Age0–5436681.88 (1.82–1.94)90.2 (89.2–91.2)0.5 (0.5–0.6)545/156.63.5 (3.2–3.8)
55–6428651.62 (1.56–1.68)78.7 (77.2–80.2)0.8 (0.7–0.8)553/56.69.8 (9–10.6)
65–7443022.47 (2.39–2.54)72.5 (71.1–73.9)1 (reference)1284/223.85.7 (5.4–6.1)
75+43872.62 (2.54–2.7)60.5 (58.9–61.9)1.5 (1.4–1.6)2851/1005.72.8 (2.7–2.9)
Deprivation1- least deprived28611.65 (1.59–1.71)77.3 (75.7–78.8)1 (reference)920/317.32.9 (2.7–3.1)
229151.67 (1.61–1.73)75.3 (73.7–76.8)1.1 (1–1.2)990/303.63.3 (3.1–3.5)
328351.62 (1.56–1.68)75.9 (74.3–77.5)1.1 (1–1.2)978/278.43.5 (3.3–3.7)
426401.51 (1.45–1.57)73.1 (71.3–74.7)1.2 (1.1–1.3)946/240.13.9 (3.7–4.2)
5- most deprived24651.39 (1.34–1.45)73.3 (71.5–75.1)1.3 (1.2–1.4)855/184.64.6 (4.3–5)
Diagnosis Year201348958.41 (8.18–8.66)74.1 (72.8–75.3)1 (reference)1997/622.73.2 (3.1–3.4)
201451268.67 (8.43–8.92)74.4 (73.2–75.6)1 (0.9–1.1)1799/487.53.7 (3.5–3.9)
201552018.68 (8.44–8.92)75.5 (74.3–76.7)1.1 (1–1.1)1437/332.54.3 (4.1–4.6)
SiteAppendix18070.95 (0.9–0.99)96.4 (95.4–97.2)1 (reference)122/89.11.4 (1.1–1.6)
Breast1070.06 (0.05–0.07)84.8 (76.3–90.4)1.5 (1–2.3)25/13.41.9 (1.3–2.8)
Bladder5000.31 (0.28–0.34)51.2 (46.6–55.7)2.4 (1.9–3.1)323/59.95.4 (4.8–6)
Colon and caecum7340.41 (0.38–0.44)72 (68.5–75.2)2.4 (1.9–3.1)249/62.94 (3.5–4.5)
Female reproductive organs (incl.C51–C57)3780.2 (0.18–0.22)69.2 (64.1–73.7)2.8 (2.2–3.7)158/12.812.3 (10.6–14.4)
Oesophagus4700.26 (0.24–0.29)35.5 (31–40.1)3.4 (2.7–4.4)366/26.114 (12.7–15.5)
Pancreas14150.8 (0.76–0.84)80.6 (78.4–82.6)2 (1.6–2.5)421/112.93.7 (3.4–4.1)
Prostate1370.08 (0.07–0.10)31.5 (23.6–39.8)2.6 (1.9–3.5)114/8.613.2 (11–15.9)
Pulmonary29891.68 (1.62–1.74)73.7 (72–75.3)2.9 (2.3–3.6)1019/2324.4 (4.1–4.7)
Rectum6220.32 (0.29–0.35)81 (77.6–83.9)2.7 (2–3.5)151/42.63.5 (3–4.2)
Skin10440.62 (0.58–0.66)74.3 (71.5–76.9)2.1 (1.5–3)460/292.21.6 (1.4–1.7)
Small Intestineb20541.17 (1.12–1.23)89.6 (88.1–90.8)1.3 (1–1.7)157/83.71.9 (1.6–2.2)
Ileum1,0240.53 (0.5–0.57)92.8 (91–94.2)ND149/120.41.2 (1.0–1.4)
Duodenum3160.18 (0.16–0.2)87.3 (83–90.6)ND54/34.81.5 (1.2–2.0)
Jejunum400.02 (0.02–0.03)89.4 (74.1–95.9)ND8/5.71.4 (0.7–2.8)
Stomach7490.43 (0.4–0.46)74.1 (70.8–77.2)2.4 (1.9–3.1)240/69.93.4 (3–3.9)
StageI26911.48 (1.42–1.53)96.1 (95.3–96.8)1 (reference)208/234.40.9 (0.8–1)
II14120.79 (0.75–0.84)87.6 (85.7–89.2)2.1 (1.8–2.6)283/150.51.9 (1.7–2.1)
III16190.92 (0.87–0.97)81.7 (79.6–83.5)3.2 (2.7–3.8)477/161.13 (2.7–3.2)
IV34932.01 (1.94–2.08)48.8 (47–50.5)8.2 (7.1–9.5)2141/217.19.9 (9.5–10.3)
Unknown60073.39 (3.3–3.48)74.5 (73.3–75.6)3.6 (3.1–4.2)2124/679.63.1 (3–3.3)
GradeMANECc5370.3 (0.27–0.33)84.3 (80.8–87.2)0.5 (0.1–3.6)136/42.33.2 (2.7–3.8)
NEC G354133.11 (3.03–3.2)51.2 (49.8–52.6)0.9 (0.8–1)3225/409.37.9 (7.6–8.2)
NET G1/G273164.04 (3.95–4.14)92.7 (92.1–93.3)0.4 (0.2–1.1)940/648.11.5 (1.4–1.5)
Otherd19561.14 (1.08–1.19)65.8 (63.5–67.9)1 (reference)932/3432.7 (2.5–2.9)
MorphologyAtypical carcinoid tumour8100.45 (0.42–0.48)89.8 (87.5–91.7)0.6 (0.2–1.6)162/75.12.2 (1.8–2.5)
Neuroendocrine tumour64623.57 (3.48–3.66)93.1 (92.4–93.7)0.5 (0.2–1.2)771/570.71.4 (1.3–1.5)
Combined small cell carcinoma2850.17 (0.15–0.19)54.8 (48.5–60.6)1 (reference)175/26.26.7 (5.8–7.7)
Goblet cell carcinoid3350.18 (0.17–0.21)92.1 (88.6–94.5)1.1 (0.1–8.7)53/26.92 (1.5–2.6)
Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma2210.13 (0.11–0.14)43.1 (36.1–49.8)1.3 (1.1–1.7)151/14.310.6 (9–12.4)
Merkel cell carcinoma10570.63 (0.59–0.67)73.4 (70.6–76)0.5 (0.4–0.7)469/288.21.6 (1.5–1.8)
Mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinoma1880.11 (0.09–0.12)68.6 (61.2–74.9)1.6 (0.2–12.6)82/14.85.5 (4.4–6.9)
Neuroendocrine carcinoma NOS43442.48 (2.41–2.56)55.1 (53.5–56.6)0.9 (0.7–1)2362/326.97.2 (6.9–7.5)
Othere1180.06 (0.05–0.08)89.4 (82.1–93.8)0.5 (0.3–0.8)26/7.43.5 (2.4–5.1)
Small cell carcinoma14020.82 (0.77–0.86)41.4 (38.7–44.1)1.3 (1.1–1.5)982/9210.7 (10–11.4)

Socioeconomic status was not available for Scotland, so deprivation for Scotland was not included see Methods

Only the most common sites are listed, for additional sites see Supplementary Table 1

ND not determined

aExcluding “death certificate only” registration i.e. date of diagnosis = date of death

bSmall intestine includes: C17.0—duodenum; C17.1—jejunum; C17.2—ileum; C17.3—Meckel’s diverticulum; C17.8; overlapping lesion of small intestine; C17.9 small intestine, unspecified

cMANEC  includes: goblet cell carcinoid; mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma; tubular adenocarcinoid tumour

dOther grade includes pathology-graded: pancreatic endocrine tumour malignant; mixed pancreatic endocrine and exocrine tumour malignant; neuroendocrine carcinoma NOS; small cell carcinoma NOS

eOther morphology includes: enterochromaffin carcinoid; gastrinoma malignant; glucagonoma malignant; insulinoma malignant; mixed pancreatic endocrine and exocrine tumour malignant; pancreatic endocrine tumour malignant; somatostatinoma malignant; tubular carcinoid; and vipoma malignant

NEN incidence, 1-year overall survival probability, multivariable analysis and mortality in the UK (2013–2015 combined) Socioeconomic status was not available for Scotland, so deprivation for Scotland was not included see Methods Only the most common sites are listed, for additional sites see Supplementary Table 1 ND not determined aExcluding “death certificate only” registration i.e. date of diagnosis = date of death bSmall intestine includes: C17.0—duodenum; C17.1—jejunum; C17.2—ileum; C17.3—Meckel’s diverticulum; C17.8; overlapping lesion of small intestine; C17.9 small intestine, unspecified cMANEC  includes: goblet cell carcinoid; mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma; tubular adenocarcinoid tumour dOther grade includes pathology-graded: pancreatic endocrine tumour malignant; mixed pancreatic endocrine and exocrine tumour malignant; neuroendocrine carcinoma NOS; small cell carcinoma NOS eOther morphology includes: enterochromaffin carcinoid; gastrinoma malignant; glucagonoma malignant; insulinoma malignant; mixed pancreatic endocrine and exocrine tumour malignant; pancreatic endocrine tumour malignant; somatostatinoma malignant; tubular carcinoid; and vipoma malignant The 2015 UK annual incidence was 8.7 per 100,000 (8.2 [95% CI, 7.8–8.5] in females and 9.2 in males [95% CI, 8.8–9.6]). It increased steadily, from 3.9 cases per 100,000 in 2001 to 7.9 per 100,000 in 2012 in England, at around 0.4 cases per 100,000 per year (Fig. 1 and Table 2), although it must be noted that these figures are from ICD-O-2 coded data so do not include morphology codes 8013 and 8249.
Fig. 1

Annual incidence (line graph) and count (bar chart) of NENs diagnosed in England 2001–2015 and the UK 2015 (cross markers)

Annual incidence (line graph) and count (bar chart) of NENs diagnosed in England 2001–2015 and the UK 2015 (cross markers)

Survival

The overall 1YS probability for persons diagnosed with NENs was 74% (Table 2), significantly higher in females 78% than in males 71% (p < 0.001 for comparison between sexes). There was a small but significant difference between the least deprived 77% and most deprived 73%. As expected, small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma had the poorest survival probability of all morphologies, 41.4%, whilst NETs had the highest at >90% (inclusive of all sites). The median survival for oesophageal, prostate and bladder NENs were 5.7 (4.5–7.5), 7.8 (5.8–9.1) and 11.3 (9.9–12.8) months, respectively. Survival for the other sites exceeded 50% at the longest time period so median survival could not be calculated for these. The 1YS probability for people diagnosed with pulmonary, pancreatic, stomach and small intestine NENs, predominantly well differentiated NETs,  was much higher than for non-NENs at these sites. Conversely, the 1YS probability for people diagnosed with oesophageal, prostate, bladder and to a lesser extent female reproductive organ, colon, and breast NENs, predominantly NECs,was much lower than for non-NENs at these sites (Table 3) and these tumours were at least three times more likely to be diagnosed at stage IV. Around 42% of oesophageal NENs were stage IV and grade 3 tumour pathology with a 1YS probability of 22% (95% CI 16.7–28.5); the predominant morphology at this site was small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (Table 1). Likewise, 75% of bladder and 74% of prostate NENs were small cell carcinomas or combined small cell carcinomas.
Table 3

1-year survival probability comparison between cancer morphology (NENs vs non-NENs) and association between stage at diagnosis (localised vs metastasized) and cancer morphology for people diagnosed in England 2013–2015

SiteTotal number of cases (stage I–IV) (n)1-year overall survival probability (%)Association between NEN morphology and a diagnosis at stage 4
NENsNon-NENsNENs (95% CI)Non-NENs (95% CI)OR (95% CI) (unadjusted)p-valueOR (95% CI) (age-and sex-adjusted)p-value
Bladder36219,85952.4 (47.4–57.1)74.9 (74.4–75.5)3.2 (2.6–4.0)<0.0003.2 (2.6–4.1)<0.000
Breast51117,05282 (68.3–90.2)96.5 (96.4–96.6)3.9 (1.9–8.2)<0.0003.7 (1.8–7.7)<0.000
Colon and caecum45850,85067.4 (62.8–71.6)82.6 (82.3–82.9)4 (3.3–4.8)<0.0003.8 (3.2–4.6)<0.000
Female reproductive organs20240,37664.7 (57.4–71.1)89.5 (89.2–89.8)4.2 (3.2–5.7)<0.0005.2 (3.9–7)<0.000
Oesophagus29616,38335.3 (29.6–41)51.6 (50.8–52.4)3.3 (2.6–4.2)<0.0003.6 (2.8–4.5)<0.000
Pancreas8388,93677.6 (74.5–80.3)31 (29.7–31.5)0.6 (0.5–0.7)<0.0000.5 (0.5–0.7)<0.000
Prostate5298,96321.1 (11.3–33.0)95.5 (95.4–95.6)41.7 (16.6–104.9)<0.00045.1 (17.8–113.9)<0.000
Pulmonary196572,67274.9 (72.9–76.8)47.2 (46.8–47.6)0.4 (0.4–0.5)<0.0000.4 (0.4–0.5)<0.000
Rectum33323,49876.4 (71.4–80.7)86.8 (86.4–87.3)1.6 (1.3–2)<0.0001.5 (1.2–2.0)<0.000
Skin (non-melanoma)a87681,67174.4 (71.6–77)92 (91.8–92.2)NDNDNDND
Small Intestine1164115791.2 (89.4–92.7)61 (58.4–63.1)0.9 (0.8–1.1)0.3140.9 (0.8–1.1)0.326
Stomach27810,93863.4 (57.3–68.9)48 (47.4–49.1)1.0 (0.8–1.3)0.240.9 (0.8–1.2)0.881

Excluding morphologies neoplasm NOS, carcinoma NOS, tumour cells NOS and basal cell carcinomas

ND not determined

anon-melanoma skin cancers not staged

1-year survival probability comparison between cancer morphology (NENs vs non-NENs) and association between stage at diagnosis (localised vs metastasized) and cancer morphology for people diagnosed in England 2013–2015 Excluding morphologies neoplasm NOS, carcinoma NOS, tumour cells NOS and basal cell carcinomas ND not determined anon-melanoma skin cancers not staged Survival decreased more with increasing stage (p < 0.001 for comparison between all stages) and grade (p < 0.001, for comparison between all grades) combined, identifying the combination as potentially a better prognostic indicator than each variable independently (Supplementary Table 2). This was particularly noticeable for grade 1 and 2 combined vs grade 3 survival probabilities in those with stage IV: lung NENs, 65.1% (56.2–72.6) vs 26.2% (22.5–30), colon NENs, 81.7% (73.1–87.8) vs 21.6% (14.7–29.5); and pancreatic NENs 86.8% (81.4–90.8) vs 41.1% (34.6–47.4). Univariable Cox regression analysis determined that the hazard of death increased by 4% (HR 1.04 95% CI [1.03–1.06]) for each increase in deprivation of 1 quintile; 21% (HR 1.21 95% CI [1.19–1.22]) for every 5 year increase in age; and 35% (HR 1.35 95% CI [1.32–1.38]) with each one increment increase in stage at diagnosis. Risk decreased by 5% (HR 0.95 95% CI [0.92–0.98]) for each year of diagnosis between 2013 and 2015. Multivariable Cox analysis adjusting for predictor variables sex, age, stage, site, morphology, grade, deprivation and year of diagnosis on mortality (Table 2) determined the hazard of death was up to 18% lower for women than men; those aged over 75 years three times that of those aged under 54 years; and those with stage IV NENs more than twice that of those with stage III NENs. Some sites were associated with increased hazard, the hazard in those with gallbladder, anal and oesophageal NENs was similar to that of those with secondary tumours (HR 3.2 95% CI [2.5–4.1]) (Supplementary Table 1). Those who lived in the most deprived areas had up to a 41% increase in hazard of death when compared with the least deprived.

Mortality

SMRs were used to measure survival relative to the general population (Table 2). Deaths occurred nearly four times more frequently in those diagnosed with NENs; varying from nearly three times more in those aged over 75 years to 10 times more in those aged 55–64 years at diagnosis, and with the same frequency as those in the general public for those with stage I to 10 times more in those with stage IV cancer.

Discussion

The incidence of NENs appears to be rising in this and other international studies.[14,15] This rise may be real, or may be an artefact of the use of diagnostic imaging[15] with improved sensitivity, and increased clinical vigilance resulting in incidental detection of asymptomatic lesions.[14] Also, in this study the upward trend in incidence between 2013, the beginning of ICD-O-3 coding in the UK and 2015 is less pronounced than that seen previously. We need future studies using a wider timeframe to determine whether the incidence of NENs is still rising or beginning to plateau. In the UK, the incidence of NENs in the rectum ranked after lung, small intestine, appendix, pancreas, stomach and colon and caecum combined, in comparison with the most recent international study, in the USA,[15] where rectum was the 3rd most common after lung and small intestine, with appendix last. In the USA, colorectal screening starts at 50 years old[16] compared with 55 years in the UK and could be improving detection; appendiceal NETs only became reportable in the USA from January 2015 (SEER personal communication), explaining the comparatively lower incidence.

Survival and mortality

Multivariable analysis identified sex, age, site, stage, cell morphology and deprivation to be independently associated with mortality. Survival probabilities for NENs in the UK had similar trends to previous international studies with male sex, increasing age, stage, and grade and decreasing socioeconomic status associated with a poorer outcome.[13,15] The much reduced 1YS and mortality in metastatic tumours (stage IV) when compared with localised tumours (stage I–III) was particularly notable and in-line with a study of “all cancers” diagnosed in the UK,[17] warranting further measures to ensure that the early diagnosis of NENs is a priority. People diagnosed with oesophageal, bladder, prostate, and female reproductive NENs had predominantly small cell carcinoma morphology, significantly poorer outcomes consistent with the results of previous smaller studies and case series,[18-21] and were more likely to be diagnosed at stage IV. Some morphologies exhibited poorer survival probabilities than expected. This was the first large series study of MANEC reported and demonstrated a survival probability of 84% in comparison with the 95% previously reported.[22] These findings highlight the need for the development of sub-specialist services to match the clinical need in the groups which have poorer outcomes.

Limitations

Tumours with uncertain behaviour (behaviour code 1) are not consistently captured by UK cancer registries because they have historically been deemed “benign” and were not included. This means that many small and indolent NETs of the stomach, rectum, appendix and pancreas may not have been included in historical data. There is an under representation of type 1 gastric NETs and stage I and II rectal NETs—that all have excellent 5- and 10-year survivals. This under representation may be significantly skewing the survival statistics presented in this study. Also, the high incidence of G3 NECs in this study, particularly those in the lung, are not representative of previous findings. In the lung, G3 NEC is used when there has been insufficient information to classify the tumour as either small cell carcinoma or large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Thus, the high incidence of G3 NEC in the lung is likely to represent small cell carcinoma, large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas and mixed tumours. This misclassification of G3 NECs could also be skewing the survival analysis. This is a caveat for ongoing classification recommendations for the purposes of analysis and audit. In the future, many of these tumours will be more consistently captured with improvements in WHO terminology. The completeness of stage was only 61% for this cohort but is improving year on year. ICD-O-3 coding was implemented in 95% of the UK in 2013 (the exception Wales in 2016), prior to this morphology codes 8013 and 8249 were not available, many of these tumours coded carcinoma or adenocarcinoma NOS (not otherwise specified). Therefore, our incidence counts are underestimates, and survival analysis limited to only 1-year. We calculated that the missing tumours from the Welsh cohort would equate to approximately 62 from common sites. Also, an audit of the English data using data collected by the NET Centre of Excellence at King’s College Hospital found 14.6% of the tumours captured were not captured by NCRAS, many behaviour 1. This would suggest the true incidence of NENs could be as high as 10 per 100,000 per year. The capture of NENs irrespective of behaviour code, ICD-O-3 coding in Wales from 2016 and improvements in data completeness will resolve the afore mentioned issues in the future. We were unable to calculate disease-specific survival and mortality due to death registrations by ICD-10 coding. However, recently it has become possible to link morphology to death registrations which will allow this in future studies.

Conclusion

This is the first population-based epidemiological study of NENs diagnosed in the UK, the results of which will be of value in future service planning. We determined that outcomes varied greatly between sites and morphologies. Comparison of NENs with non-NENs at the same site also found disparities. These differing outcomes between patient groups have a direct relationship with the healthcare resource required to manage them; and highlight the need for NENs to be seen at Centres of Excellence. Earlier diagnosis is necessary, and the identification of more diagnostic markers for NENs, particularly for extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas, required. Future studies will allow 3- and 5-year survival estimates, and the availability of treatment data will allow more in-depth studies, and we are developing ways of collecting more detailed imaging, biochemistry, screening and symptom data which ultimately will be linked to the current cancer registry data. Pathologists have been instructed to include small benign pancreatic NETs as malignant as per WHO terminology and detail Ki67 on all specimen. Ki67 has not been routinely captured by the UK cancer registries to date, however this will change in mid-2020 with the implementation of version 9 of the Cancer Outcome and Services Data set (COSD), the national standard for reporting cancer in the NHS in England, in which Ki67 will be a required field and so captured by the English registry. Although the UK cancer registries do not currently hold complete data on MEN-1 diagnosis, the recent addition of genetic data means that this may also be available for future studies. Supplementary Table 1: NEN incidence, 1-year survival probability, univariable and multivariable analysis, and mortality in UK (online only) Supplementary Table 2: 1-year survival probability (%) for pulmonary, small intestinal, appendiceal, pancreatic, stomach, rectal, and oesophageal NENs diagnosed in the UK between 2013 and 2015, by grade and stage (online only)
  15 in total

1.  TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.

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

2.  Cervical cancer - does the morphological subtype affect survival rates?

Authors:  Marta Emmett; Carolynn Gildea; Andrew Nordin; Lynn Hirschowitz; Jason Poole
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Andrew M D Wolf; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Carmen E Guerra; Samuel J LaMonte; Ruth Etzioni; Matthew T McKenna; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Kimberly S Andrews; Otis W Brawley; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Rebecca L Siegel; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Mixed Adeno-neuroendocrine Carcinoma: An Aggressive Clinical Entity.

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

Review 5.  Neuroendocrine tumors of the gallbladder: an evaluation and reassessment of management strategy.

Authors:  Karim M Eltawil; Bjorn I Gustafsson; Mark Kidd; Irvin M Modlin
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.062

6.  Cumulative cause-specific mortality for cancer patients in the presence of other causes: a crude analogue of relative survival.

Authors:  K A Cronin; E J Feuer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  One hundred years after "carcinoid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States.

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

8.  TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.

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

9.  Small cell oesophageal carcinoma: an institutional experience and review of the literature.

Authors:  E Hudson; J Powell; S Mukherjee; T D L Crosby; A E Brewster; T S Maughan; H Bailey; J F Lester
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Unusual Sites of High-Grade Neuroendocrine Carcinomas: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Watson; Yasar Ahmed; Sarah Picardo; Sonya Chew; Shona Cobbe; Cillian Mahony; James Crotty; Fintan Wallis; Martin J Shelly; Patrick Kiely; Olu Bunmi Ipadeola; Vourneen Healy; Nemer Osman; Rajnish K Gupta
Journal:  Am J Case Rep       Date:  2018-06-19
View more
  18 in total

1.  Neuroendocrine tumours: what gastroenterologists need to know.

Authors:  Mohid S Khan; D Mark Pritchard
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09-22

Review 2.  Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: what the radiologists should know.

Authors:  Mayur Virarkar; Dheeraj R Gopireddy; Ajaykumar C Morani; Ahmad Alkhasawneh; Sergio Piotr Klimkowski; Sindhu Kumar; Chandana Lall; Priya Bhosale
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-03-14

3.  Pancreatic cancer survival by stage and age in seven high-income countries (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.

Authors:  Citadel J Cabasag; Melina Arnold; Mark Rutherford; Aude Bardot; Jacques Ferlay; Eileen Morgan; Alana Little; Prithwish De; Elijah Dixon; Ryan R Woods; Nathalie Saint-Jacques; Sue Evans; Gerda Engholm; Mark Elwood; Neil Merrett; David Ransom; Dianne L O'Connell; Freddie Bray; Isabelle Soerjomataram
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 9.075

Review 4.  Epidemiology, Incidence, and Prevalence of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Are There Global Differences?

Authors:  Satya Das; Arvind Dasari
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-03-14       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 5.  Update on Pathophysiology, Treatment, and Complications of Carcinoid Syndrome.

Authors:  Dominique Clement; John Ramage; Raj Srirajaskanthan
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 4.375

Review 6.  The Role of Patient Support Groups in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

Authors:  Teodora Kolarova; Catherine Bouvier
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Association Between the Pretreatment Albumin-to-Alkaline Phosphatase Ratio and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Bladder Cancer Treated With Radical Cystectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shijie Li; Shiyang Lu; Xuefeng Liu; Xiaonan Chen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Quality of life in patients with gastroenteropancreatic tumours: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Catherine Watson; Craig William Tallentire; John K Ramage; Rajaventhan Srirajaskanthan; Oscar R Leeuwenkamp; Donna Fountain
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Prognostic value of the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Tal Grenader; Marianne E Pavel; Philippe B Ruszniewski; Jarosław B Ćwikła; Alexandria T Phan; Markus Raderer; Eva Sedláčková; Guillaume Cadiot; Edward M Wolin; Jaume Capdevila; Lucy Wall; Guido Rindi; Xuan-Mai Truong Thanh; Martyn E Caplin
Journal:  Anticancer Drugs       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.389

10.  Cardiovascular Mortality Risk among Patients with Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Registry-Based Analysis.

Authors:  Shenghong Sun; Wei Wang; Chiyi He
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 6.543

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.