Research Article

A prognostic nomogram in patients with distant metastasis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based study

Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China

‡Authors contributed equally; co-first authors

Search for more papers by this author

Hai-Yan Chen^‡

Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China

‡Authors contributed equally; co-first authors

Search for more papers by this author

Yuan-Fei Lu

Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Ri-Sheng Yu

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +86 571 87783924; Fax: +86 571 87784556;

E-mail Address: risheng-yu@zju.edu.cn

Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:5 Dec 2019https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2019-0545

View article

Abstract

Aim: Prognostic factors in patients with distant metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) remain uncertain. The purpose of our study is to establish a nomogram to predict survival outcomes in patients with metastatic PNETs. Methods: A total of 878 patients diagnosed with PNETs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database between 2004 and 2016 were retrospectively identified. The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with log-rank test was used to analyze survival outcomes. The nomogram was established after a univariate and multivariate Cox analysis. Results: The independent prognostic variables, including age, tumor grade and primary site surgery were applied to develop a nomogram. The original concordance index was 0.773 (95% CI: 0.751–0.795), and the bias-corrected concordance index was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.748–0.791). The internal calibration curves showed well consistency and veracity in predicting cancer-specific survival probabilities. Conclusion: A nomogram was constructed and verified to predict survival outcomes in patients with distant-stage PNETs.

Keywords:

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

References

1. 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). •• A comprehensive analysis of incidence, prevalence and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Cives M, Strosberg JR. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68(6), 471–487 (2018). •• A comprehensive review of gastroenteropancreatic NETs through epidemiology, pathology, prognosis, biology and molecular genetics.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Bilimoria KY, Tomlinson JS, Merkow RP et al. Clinicopathologic features and treatment trends of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of 9,821 patients. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 11(11), 1460–1467; discussion 1467–1469 (2007). •• A large population-based study conducted at early years analyzing the clinicopathological features of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, assessing treatment trends over time and identifying factors associated with undergoing resection.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Lloyd RV, Osamura RY, G K, J R. WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs – Chapter 6 Neoplasms of the neuroendocrine pancreas. (4th Edition). IARC Press, Lyon, France 10, 209–210 (2017).
Google Scholar
5. Brooks JC, Shavelle RM, Vavra-Musser KN. Life expectancy in pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 43(1), 88–97 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. 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).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. 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).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Cai W, Tan Y, Ge W, Ding K, Hu H. Pattern and risk factors for distant metastases in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study. Cancer Med. 7(6), 2699–2709 (2018). • A population-based retrospective cohort study from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database that analyzed the pattern and risk factors of distant metastases in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Goretzki PE, Mogl MT, Akca A, Pratschke J. Curative and palliative surgery in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) tract. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. 19(2), 169–178 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. 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).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Feng T, Lv W, Yuan M et al. Surgical resection of the primary tumor leads to prolonged survival in metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. World J. Surg. Oncol. 17(1), 54 (2019). • A SEER database study, suggested that chemotherapy, location of the primary tumor in the pancreatic tail, and, most importantly, surgical removal of the primary tumor are associated with prolonged survival in stage IV pNEC patients.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Fang C, Wang W, Feng X et al. Nomogram individually predicts the overall survival of patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Br. J. Cancer 117(10), 1544–1550 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Merath K, Bagante F, Beal EW et al. Nomogram predicting the risk of recurrence after curative-intent resection of primary non-metastatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of the U.S. Neuroendocrine Tumor Study Group. J. Surg. Oncol. 117(5), 868–878 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Cao LL, Lu J, Lin JX et al. Nomogram based on tumor-associated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio to predict survival of patients with gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms. World J. Gastroenterol. 23(47), 8376–8386 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Miao DL, Song W, Qian J et al. Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting overall survival in pancreatic neuroendocrinetumors. Transl. Oncol. 11(5), 1097–1103 (2018). • A study based on the SEER database developed and validated a nomogram to predict overall survival in patients with pancreatic NETs.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Ruzzenente A, Bagante F, Bertuzzo F et al. A novel nomogram to predict the prognosis of patients undergoing liver resection for neuroendocrine liver metastasis: an analysis of the italian neuroendocrine liver metastasis database. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 21(1), 41–48 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Ye L, Ye H, Zhou Q et al. A retrospective cohort study of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at single institution over 15 years: new proposal for low- and high-grade groups, validation of a nomogram for prognosis, and novel follow-up strategy for liver metastases. Int. J. Surg. 29, 108–117 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Kloppel G, Couvelard A, Perren A et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: towards a standardized approach to the diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and their prognostic stratification. Neuroendocrinology 90(2), 162–166 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Pelosi G, Bresaola E, Bogina G et al. Endocrine tumors of the pancreas: ki-67 immunoreactivity on paraffin sections is an independent predictor for malignancy: a comparative study with proliferating-cell nuclear antigen and progesterone recep tor protein immunostaining, mitotic index, and other clinicopathologic variables. Hum. Pathol. 27(11), 1124–1134 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Rindi G, Kloppel G, Alhman H et al. TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch. 449(4), 395–401 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Perren A, Couvelard A, Scoazec JY et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: pathology: diagnosis and prognostic stratification. Neuroendocrinology 105(3), 196–200 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. AA K, JE Z. Assessing the calibration of mortality benchmarks in critical care: the Hosmer-Lemeshow test revisited. Crit. Care Med. 35(9), 2052–2056 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Zhang X, Song J, Liu P et al. A modified M-stage classification based on the metastatic patterns of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study. BMC Endocr. Disord. 18(1), 73 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Colquhoun SD. Neuroendocrine tumors with hepatic metastases: a review of evolving treatment options. Liver Res. 2(2), 92–99 (2018).
Google Scholar
25. Watzka FM, Fottner C, Miederer M et al. Surgical therapy of neuroendocrine neoplasm with hepatic metastasis: patient selection and prognosis. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 400(3), 349–358 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Halperin DM, Yao JC, Arvind Dasari. What's in a name? Steady progress in staging pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(3), 265–267 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. 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
28. 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
29. Wen J, Chen J, Liu D et al. The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) distant metastases (M) stage classification for metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors might be feasible for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. Neuroendocrinology doi: 10.1159/000502382 (2019) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Wu J, Sun C, Li E et al. Non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: emerging trends in incidence and mortality. BMC Cancer 19(1), 334 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Sackstein PE, O'Neil DS, Neugut AI, Chabot J, Fojo T. Epidemiologic 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). • Reason: A large population-based study based on the SEER database to determine incidence rates and overall survival rates of patients with NETs.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Zhai H, Li D, Feng Q et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: grade is superior to T, N, or M status in predicting outcome and selecting patients for chemotherapy: a retrospective cohort study in the SEER database. Int. J. Surg. 66, 103–109 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Tang LH, Untch BR, Reidy DL et al. Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors with a morphologically apparent high-grade component: a pathway distinct from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 22(4), 1011–1017 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Pulitano C et al. Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17(12), 3129–3136 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Lesurtel M, Nagorney DM, Mazzaferro V, Jensen RT, Poston GJ. When should a liver resection be performed in patients with liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumours? A systematic review with practice recommendations. HPB (Oxford). 17(1), 17–22 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. He CB, Zhang Y, Cai ZY, Lin XJ. The impact of surgery in metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a competing risk analysis. Endocr. Connect. 8(3), 239–251 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Ramage JK, Ahmed A, Ardill J et al. Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumours (NETs). Gut 61(1), 6–32 (2012). •• Reason: A management guideline for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine covering many aspects and based on evidence.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Keutgen XM, Nilubol N, Glanville J et al. Resection of primary tumor site is associated with prolonged survival in metastatic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Surgery 159(1), 311–318 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. He C, Zhong L, Zhang Y, Cai Z, Lin X. Development and validation of a nomogram to predict liver metastasis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a large cohort study. Cancer Manag. Res. 11, 3981–3991 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 218 times

History

Received 5 September 2019

Accepted 11 November 2019

Published online 5 December 2019

Published in print January 2020

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no 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. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

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

Ethical research of conduct

The authors state that they have obtained appropriate institutional review board approval or have followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki for all human or animal experimental investigations. In addition, for investigations involving human subjects, informed consent has been obtained from the participants involved.

PDF download