Research Article

Effects of tumor types on treatment strategy formulation and prognostic evaluation of gastric neuroendocrine tumors

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. No. 1, East Jianshe Road, Zhengzhou 450052, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Zhaodi Wang

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. No. 1, East Jianshe Road, Zhengzhou 450052, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Xiaoqian Peng

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. No. 1, East Jianshe Road, Zhengzhou 450052, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Lianfeng Zhang

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. No. 1, East Jianshe Road, Zhengzhou 450052, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Lin Zhou

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +86 371 6832 4866;

E-mail Address: ZLTG2020@163.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-6894

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. No. 1, East Jianshe Road, Zhengzhou 450052, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:20 Jul 2020https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0150

View article

Abstract

Aim: The effects of different types of gastric neuroendocrine tumors (G-NETs) on treatment strategy formulation and prognostic evaluation still remain controversial due to their rarity. Methods: 187 patients diagnosed with G-NETs were subdivided into four types based on the pathophysiology, etiology and presentation. Results: Type I, II G-NETs >1.0 cm and type III, IV G-NETs >2.0 cm are proved with aggressive behavior (p < 0.05). Type III G-NETs with higher Ki-67 index and tumor stage showed more invasive potential than type I and II G-NETs (p < 0.05). Endoscopic resection is the primary treatment for type I, II G-NETs, while surgical combined with chemotherapy is associated with favorable outcomes for type IV G-NETs. Conclusion: The clinical classifications of G-NETs are of great significance for the choice of treatment and the evaluation of prognosis.

Keywords:

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

References

1. Gray KD, Moore MD, Panjwani S et al. Predicting survival and response to treatment in gastroesophageal neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of the National Cancer Database. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 25(5), 1418–1424 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Landry CS, Brock G, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM, Martin RC 2nd. A proposed staging system for gastric carcinoid tumors based on an analysis of 1,543 patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 16(1), 51–60 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Matsubayashi H, Takagaki S, Otsubo T et al. Advanced gastric glandular-endocrine cell carcinoma with 1-year survival after gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 3(4), 226–233 (2000).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Yang Z, Wang WH, Lu JF et al. Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (G-Nets): incidence, prognosis and recent trend toward improved survival. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 45(1), 389–396 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Delle Fave G, Kwekkeboom DJ, Van Cutsem E et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with gastroduodenal neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 95(2), 74–87 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Manfredi S, Walter T, Baudin E et al. Management of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours in a large French national cohort (GTE). Endocrine 57(3), 504–511 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Vanoli A, La Rosa S, Miceli E et al. Prognostic evaluations tailored to specific gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: analysis of 200 cases with extended follow-up. Neuroendocrinology 107(2), 114–126 (2018). •• Given the marked, tumor type-related behavior differences, evaluation of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasm prognostic parameters should be tailored to the type of neoplastic disease.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Zhang P, Zhang Y, Zhang C et al. Subtype classification and clinicopathological characteristics of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: an analysis of 241 cases. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 19(11), 1241–1246 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Rindi G, Klimstra DS, Abedi-Ardekani B et al. A common classification framework for neuroendocrine neoplasms: an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) expert consensus proposal. Mod. Pathol. 31(12), 1770–1786 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon IARC press, 13–14 (2010).
Google Scholar
11. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Digestive System Tumours. WHO Classification of Tumours (5th Edition). WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 16 (2019).
Google Scholar
12. Busico A, Maisonneuve P, Prinzi N et al. Gastroenteropancreatic high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (H-NENs): histology and molecular analysis, two sides of the same coin. Neuroendocrinology 110(7–8), 616–629 (2019) .
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Chinese Pathologic Consensus Group for Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasm. Chinese pathologic consensus for standard diagnosis of gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 40(5), 257–262 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67(2), 93–99 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Fairweather M, Swanson R, Wang J et al. Management of neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: long-term outcomes and prognostic factors from a large prospective database. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 24(8), 2319–2325 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Zhang L, Ozao J, Warner R, Divino C. Review of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of type I gastric carcinoid tumor. World J. Surg. 35(8), 1879–1886 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Thomas D, Tsolakis AV, Grozinsky-Glasberg S et al. Long-term follow-up of a large series of patients with type 1 gastric carcinoid tumors: data from a multicenter study. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 168(2), 185–193 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Burkitt MD, Pritchard DM. Review article: pathogenesis and management of gastric carcinoid tumours. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 24(9), 1305–1320 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Campana D, Ravizza D, Ferolla P et al. Risk factors of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia in patients with chronic atrophic gastritis. A retrospective, multicentre study. Endocrine 56(3), 633–638 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Berna MJ, Annibale B, Marignani M et al. A prospective study of gastric carcinoids and enterochromaffin-like cell changes in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: identification of risk factors. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 93(5), 1582–1591 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Postlewait LM, Baptiste GG, Ethun CG et al. A 15-year experience with gastric neuroendocrine tumors: does type make a difference? J. Surg. Oncol. 114(5), 576–580 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Thomaz Araujo TM, Barra WF, Khayat AS, de Assumpcao PP. Insights into gastric neuroendocrine tumors burden. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 29(2), 137–143 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Kidd M, Gustafsson B, Modlin IM. Gastric carcinoids (neuroendocrine neoplasms). Gastroenterol. Clin. North Am. 42(2), 381–397 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Corey B, Chen H. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach. Surg. Clin. North Am. 97(2), 333–343 (2017). • Offers a theoretical foundation for our study.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Min BH, Hong M, Lee JH et al. Clinicopathological features and outcome of type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumours. Br. J. Surg. 105(11), 1480–1486 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Thomas D, Strosberg JR et al. Metastatic type 1 gastric carcinoid: a real threat or just a myth? World J. Gastroenterol. 19(46), 8687–8695 (2013). • Offers a theoretical foundation for our study.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Tsolakis AV, Ragkousi A, Vujasinovic M, Kaltsas G, Daskalakis K. Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms type 1: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 25(35), 5376–5387 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Rindi G, Luinetti O, Cornaggia M, Capella C, Solcia E. Three subtypes of gastric argyrophil carcinoid and the gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study. Gastroenterology 104(4), 994–1006 (1993).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Fendrich V, Bartsch DK. Surgical treatment of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 396(3), 299–311 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Nishikura K, Watanabe H, Iwafuchi M, Fujiwara T, Kojima K, Ajioka Y. Carcinogenesis of gastric endocrine cell carcinoma: analysis of histopathology and p53 gene alteration. Gastric Cancer 6(4), 203–209 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Modlin IM, Kidd M, Lye KD. Biology and management of gastric carcinoid tumours: a review. Eur. J. Surg. 168(12), 669–683 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Manfredi S, Pagenault M, de Lajarte-Thirouard AS, Bretagne JF. Type 1 and 2 gastric carcinoid tumors: long-term follow-up of the efficacy of treatment with a slow-release somatostatin analogue. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 19(11), 1021–1025 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Felder S, Jann H, Arsenic R et al. Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasias: manifestations and comparative outcomes. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 26(9), 751–763 (2019). • Offers a theoretical foundation for our study.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Dias AR, Azevedo BC, Alban LBV et al. Gastric neuroendocrine tumor: review and update. Arq. Bras. Cir. Dig. 30(2), 150–154 (2017). •• Gastric neuroendocrine tumors are classified in four clinical types. Correct identification of the clinical type and histological grade is fundamental, since treatment varies accordingly and defines survival.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Turaga KK, Kvols LK. Recent progress in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61(2), 113–132 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 28

Metrics

Downloaded 101 times

History

Received 21 February 2020

Accepted 24 June 2020

Published online 20 July 2020

Published in print October 2020

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All the authors made substantial contributions to the design and analysis of this work, which included drafting and assessing the manuscript. All the authors approved the final manuscript for submission and agreed to be accountable for the work.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China 81001103 and 81472325. 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

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.

Data sharing statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

PDF download