H T Debas1, S J Mulvihill. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California-San Francisco.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review our experiences in order to high-light some important lessons learned in the treatment of patients with neuroendocrine gut neoplasms. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of case series of 70 patients with neuroendocrine gut neoplasms treated between 1983 and 1993. The clinical features of individual patients illustrate lessons in surgical treatment. SETTING: University hospitals with tertiary care referral practice. INTERVENTIONS: The main intervention was abdominal exploration in 43 patients, with resection of the primary tumor in 39 and of hepatic metastases in four. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To describe the tumors seen and to identify major lessons learned. RESULTS: Of 70 patients with neuroendocrine tumors treated, 31 had carcinoid tumors, 10 each had insulinomas and gastrinomas, five had vipomas, nine had non-functioning islet cell tumors, three had glucagonomas, and one each had somatostatinoma and a possible cholecystokinin-secreting tumor (or CCKoma). Important lessons learned include: (1) the importance of preoperative tumor localization; (2) in multiple endocrine neoplasia, type I syndrome, the tumor found may not be the one responsible for the patient's symptoms; (3) solitary sporadic tumors secreting multiple peptides may mimic multiple tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia, type I syndrome; (4) one needs to be prepared for the unexpected, such as the carcinoid crisis; (5) resection may sometimes be necessary even with advanced local disease; and (6) selected patients may benefit from pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These rare tumors are interesting in their clinical presentation and can be challenging in their treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To review our experiences in order to high-light some important lessons learned in the treatment of patients with neuroendocrine gut neoplasms. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of case series of 70 patients with neuroendocrine gut neoplasms treated between 1983 and 1993. The clinical features of individual patients illustrate lessons in surgical treatment. SETTING: University hospitals with tertiary care referral practice. INTERVENTIONS: The main intervention was abdominal exploration in 43 patients, with resection of the primary tumor in 39 and of hepatic metastases in four. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To describe the tumors seen and to identify major lessons learned. RESULTS: Of 70 patients with neuroendocrine tumors treated, 31 had carcinoid tumors, 10 each had insulinomas and gastrinomas, five had vipomas, nine had non-functioning islet cell tumors, three had glucagonomas, and one each had somatostatinoma and a possible cholecystokinin-secreting tumor (or CCKoma). Important lessons learned include: (1) the importance of preoperative tumor localization; (2) in multiple endocrine neoplasia, type I syndrome, the tumor found may not be the one responsible for the patient's symptoms; (3) solitary sporadic tumors secreting multiple peptides may mimic multiple tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia, type I syndrome; (4) one needs to be prepared for the unexpected, such as the carcinoid crisis; (5) resection may sometimes be necessary even with advanced local disease; and (6) selected patients may benefit from pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These rare tumors are interesting in their clinical presentation and can be challenging in their treatment.
Authors: J K Ramage; A H G Davies; J Ardill; N Bax; M Caplin; A Grossman; R Hawkins; A M McNicol; N Reed; R Sutton; R Thakker; S Aylwin; D Breen; K Britton; K Buchanan; P Corrie; A Gillams; V Lewington; D McCance; K Meeran; A Watkinson Journal: Gut Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jessica E Maxwell; Boris Naraev; Daniel M Halperin; Michael A Choti; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John K Ramage; A Ahmed; J Ardill; N Bax; D J Breen; M E Caplin; P Corrie; J Davar; A H Davies; V Lewington; T Meyer; J Newell-Price; G Poston; N Reed; A Rockall; W Steward; R V Thakker; C Toubanakis; J Valle; C Verbeke; A B Grossman Journal: Gut Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 23.059