Research Article

Epidemiologic trends and prognostic risk factors of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in the US: an updated population-based study

Department of General Surgery, Molecular Oncology & Immunotherapy, Rostock University Medical Center, Schillingallee 69, 18057, Rostock, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Yuru Shang

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9372-5806

Department of Plastic Surgery, Shenzhen University General Hospital, Xueyuan Road 1098, 518055, Shenzhen, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Christina Susanne Mullins

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-2027

Department of General Surgery, Molecular Oncology & Immunotherapy, Rostock University Medical Center, Schillingallee 69, 18057, Rostock, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Xianbin Zhang

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0948-6698

Department of General Surgery, Shenzhen University General Hospital & Carson International Cancer Research Centre, Xueyuan Road 1098, 518055, Shenzhen, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Linnebacher

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +49 381 494 6043;

E-mail Address: michael.linnebacher@med.uni-rostock.de

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8054-1402

Department of General Surgery, Molecular Oncology & Immunotherapy, Rostock University Medical Center, Schillingallee 69, 18057, Rostock, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:6 Jan 2021https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0543

View article

Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate the incidence, mortality and survival outcome for patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN). Methods: Patients with pNEN were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Incidence, mortality and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were calculated using SEER stat 8.3.6 and Joinpoint software. Survival outcome was estimated using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard model. Results: During 2000–2016, the incidence of pNEN significantly rose from 0.2647 to 1.0618 per 100,000 persons with an AAPC of 9.4; AAPC of mortality was 6.7. Prognostic improvement was revealed in 2010–2016, but not for late-stage pNEN, which had the highest risk of death. Conclusion: Efforts to improve prognosis of pNEN patients must focus on not only early detection, but also on improving therapy for late-stage disease.

Lay abstract

An increasing number of US patients have been identified in recent years (2000–2016) with cancer of the pancreas of the neuroendocrine type. Interestingly, this is especially true for early-stage cancer. This goes along with an increased awareness of patients and physicians for this type of cancer as well as improvements in medical imaging and screening. However, if this cancer is only detected late, the survival chances remain poor. Therefore, future clinical management and research should not only focus on further improving early detection, but also on the development of more effective therapies for late stages of pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Partelli S, Cirocchi R, Crippa S et al. Systematic review of active surveillance versus surgical management of asymptomatic small non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Br. J. Surg. 104(1), 34–41 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Halfdanarson TR, Rabe KG, Rubin J, Petersen GM. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs): incidence, prognosis and recent trend toward improved survival. Ann. Oncol. 19(10), 1727–1733 (2008). •• Identified that the basic annual incidence had increased around 1.5-fold from 1973 to 2000 and that the survival of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNETs) had increased over time.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Sun J. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Intractable Rare Dis. Res. 6(1), 21–28 (2017). • Reviewed the development of diagnosis for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and the selection of treatment for different classifications and stages.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Hallet J, Law CH, Cukier M, Saskin R, Liu N, Singh S. Exploring the rising incidence of neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based analysis of epidemiology, metastatic presentation, and outcomes. Cancer 121(4), 589–597 (2015). •• Found markedly increased incidence in neuroendocrine tumors during 1994–2009 and suggested the increased detection of neuroendocrine tumors as a possible explanation for the increase.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Man D, Wu J, Shen Z, Zhu X. Prognosis of patients with neuroendocrine tumor: a SEER database analysis. Cancer Manag. Res. 10, 5629–5638 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Modlin IM, Oberg K, Chung DC et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol. 9(1), 61–72 (2008). •• First report that the incidence and prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours increased substantially during 1970–2005, partly reflecting the advanced availability of medical imaging for diagnosing this kind of tumor.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 3(10), 1335–1342 (2017). •• Showed that survival for all neuroendocrine tumors had improved during 2009–2012, especially for distant-stage gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat. Med. 19(3), 335–351 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute.. SEER *stat software. version<8.3.6>. seer.cancer.gov/seerstat
Google Scholar
10. Zhang X, Lu L, Liu P et al. Predictive effect of the total number of examined lymph nodes on N staging and survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Pancreas 47(2), 183–189 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A et al. One hundred years after ‘carcinoid’: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(18), 3063–3072 (2008). • Emphasized that neuroendocrine tumors have a better prognosis than adenocarcinomas, but are incurable once advanced to unresectable metastatic tumors.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. SEER Training Modules. Cancer Registration & Surveillance Modules. US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (2019). https://training.seer.cancer.gov/
Google Scholar
13. Tas ML, Reedijk AMJ, Karim-Kos HE et al. Neuroblastoma between 1990 and 2014 in the Netherlands: increased incidence and improved survival of high-risk neuroblastoma. Eur. J. Cancer 124, 47–55 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Sackstein PE, O'Neil DS, Neugut AI, Chabot J, Fojo T. Epidemioogic trends in neuroendocrine tumors: an examination of incidence rates and survival of specific patient subgroups over the past 20 years. Semin. Oncol. 45(4), 249–258 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Boyar Cetinkaya R, Aagnes B, Thiis-Evensen E, Tretli S, Bergestuen DS, Hansen S. Trends in incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms in Norway: a report of 16,075 cases from 1993 through 2010. Neuroendocrinology 104(1), 1–10 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Hauso O, Gustafsson BI, Kidd M et al. Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology: contrasting Norway and North America. Cancer 113(10), 2655–2664 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Ito T, Igarashi H, Nakamura K et al. Epidemiological trends of pancreatic and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors in Japan: a nationwide survey analysis. J. Gastroenterol. 50(1), 58–64 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Levi F, Te VC, Randimbison L, Rindi G, La Vecchia C. Epidemiology of carcinoid neoplasms in Vaud, Switzerland, 1974–97. Br. J. Cancer 83(7), 952–955 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Sadowski SM, Neychev V, Millo C et al. Prospective study of 68Ga-DOTATATE positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detecting gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and unknown primary sites. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(6), 588–596 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Khashab MA, Yong E, Lennon AM et al. EUS is still superior to multidetector computerized tomography for detection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Gastrointest. Endosc. 73(4), 691–696 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Coppola D, Lloyd RV, Suster S. The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: a review of nomenclature, grading, and staging systems. Pancreas 39(6), 707–712 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Leoncini E, Carioli G, La Vecchia C, Boccia S, Rindi G. Risk factors for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 27(1), 68–81 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Haugvik SP, Hedenstrom P, Korsaeth E et al. Diabetes, smoking, alcohol use, and family history of cancer as risk factors for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroendocrinology 101(2), 133–142 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Huang PY, Tsai KL, Liang CM et al. Prognostic factors of patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 34(11), 650–656 (2018). • Identified that non-rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (pancreas, stomach, appendix etc.) had poorer survival outcomes.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Zhu LM, Tang L, Qiao XW et al. Differences and similarities in the clinicopathological features of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in China and the United States: a multicenter study. Medicine 95(7), e2836 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Song Y, Gao S, Tan W, Qiu Z, Zhou H, Zhao Y. Multiple machine learnings revealed similar predictive accuracy for prognosis of PNETs from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result database. J. Cancer 9(21), 3971–3978 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Franko J, Feng W, Yip L, Genovese E, Moser AJ. Non-functional neuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas: incidence, tumor biology, and outcomes in 2,158 patients. J. Gastrointest Surg. 14(3), 541–548 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Zhou H, Zhang Y, Wei X et al. Racial disparities in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors survival: a SEER study. Cancer Med. 6(11), 2745–2756 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Ellison TA, Wolfgang CL, Shi C et al. A single institution's 26-year experience with nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a validation of current staging systems and a new prognostic nomogram. Ann. Surg. 259(2), 204–212 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Zhang C, Wu Y, Zhuang H et al. Establishment and validation of an AJCC stage- and histologic grade-based nomogram for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after surgical resection. Cancer Manag. Res. 11, 7345–7352 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 5

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 162 times

History

Received 26 May 2020

Accepted 23 September 2020

Published online 6 January 2021

Published in print February 2021

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2020-0543

Author contributions

M Linnebacher and L Lu designed the research study; L Lu wrote the manuscript; L Lu and Y Shang analyzed the data; M Linnebacher, X Zhang and CS Mullins reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for providing the original data.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

L Lu was supported by the China Scholarship Council (grant no. 201908080127). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

This study does not involve any human or animal experimental investigations. No ethics approval was sought for this study by the authors as the database used was a publicly available population-based database from the National Cancer Institute.

Data sharing statement

The authors certify that this manuscript reports the secondary analysis of clinical trial data that have been shared with them, and that the use of this shared data is in accordance with the terms (if any) agreed upon their receipt. The source of this data is: the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database.

PDF download