Impact of margin status on outcomes after endoscopic resection of well-differentiated duodenal neuroendocrine tumors

Endoscopic versus surgical resection of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms between 10 and 20 mm: A multi-centered retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Recommendations for resection technique of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (D-NEN) with a size between 10 and 20 mm are lacking. The primary aim was to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after endoscopic resection (ER) with surgical resection (SR). The secondary aim was to assess the incidence and clinical variables correlated with OS.

METHODS

Data of patients with D-NENs between 2008 and 2018 were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients were identified, of which 138 were included: 98 (68 %) underwent ER and 44 patients (32 %) underwent SR. Of these, 38 patients had D-NENs sized between 10 and 20 mm. ER Patients were more frequently male and had a lower T-stage and tumour size than SR patients (all P < 0.05). Positive resection margins were observed more frequently after ER compared to SR (71 % vs 15 %, P < 0.005). No patients with tumours between 10 and 20 mm died after ER or SR (median follow-up 71.8 vs. 52.0 months). PFS rates were not significantly different after ER compared to SR (P = 0.672). Recurrence rates were 13 % for ER and 7 % for SR (P = 0.604).

CONCLUSION

Between 2008 and 2018, the incidence increased from 0.06 to 0.11 per 100,000 patients per year. OS after ER or SR did not differ for D-NEN between 10 and 20 mm. Recurrence and PFS rates were not significantly different. These results suggest that D-NENs sized between 10 and 20 mm could potentially be treated first with ER. Future studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for well-differentiated nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (NAD-NETs) are rare, with limited evidence regarding endoscopic treatment. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of well-differentiated NAD-NETs and evaluated long-term outcomes, including local recurrence and metastasis.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with NAD-NETs who underwent endoscopic resection between January 2011 and August 2022 were included. Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

En-bloc resection was achieved for 74 tumors (94.9%) and R0 resection for 68 tumors (87.2%). Univariate analysis identified tumors in the second part of the duodenum, tumor size ≥10 mm, and muscularis propria invasion as risk factors for noncurative resection. Two patients with R1 resection (vertical margin involvement) and 2 patients with lymphovascular invasion underwent additional surgery. Four patients experienced adverse events (5.1%), including 2 cases of delayed bleeding and 2 cases of perforation, all successfully managed conservatively. During a median follow-up period of 62.6 months, recurrence and lymph node metastasis were only detected in 1 patient with R1 resection 3 months after the original procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection is safe and effective and provides a favorable long-term outcome for patients with well-differentiated NAD-NETs without regional lymph node or distant metastasis.

Endoscopic Resection for Duodenal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms between 10 and 20 mm-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. The optimal management of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (dNENs) sized 10-20 mm remains controversial and although endoscopic resection is increasingly performed instead of surgery, the therapeutic approach in this setting is not fully standardized. We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to clarify the outcomes of endoscopic resection for 10-20 mm dNENs in terms of efficacy (i.e., recurrence rate) and safety. Methods. A computerized literature search was performed using relevant keywords to identify pertinent articles published until January 2023. Results. Seven retrospective studies were included in this systematic review. The overall recurrence rate was 14.6% (95%CI 5.4-27.4) in 65 patients analyzed, without significant heterogeneity. When considering studies specifically focused on endoscopic mucosal resection, the recurrence rate was 20.5% (95%CI 10.7-32.4), without significant heterogeneity. The ability to obtain the free margin after endoscopic resection ranged between 36% and 100%. No complications were observed in the four studies reporting this information. Conclusions. Endoscopic resection could be the first treatment option in patients with dNENs sized 10-20 mm and without evidence of metastatic disease. Further studies are needed to draw more solid conclusions, particularly in terms of superiority among the available endoscopic techniques.

Endoscopic papillectomy could be rewarding to patients with early stage duodenal ampullary carcinoma?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There is currently no consensus on the use of endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for early stage duodenal ampullary adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of EP for patients with early stage duodenal ampullary adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EP for ampullary adenocarcinomas were investigated. Complete and clinical complete resection rates were evaluated. Clinical complete resection was defined as either complete resection or resection with positive or unknown margins but no cancer in the surgically resected specimen, or no recurrence on endoscopy after at least a 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Adenocarcinoma developed in 30 patients (carcinoma in situ [Tis]: 21, mucosal tumors [T1a(M)]: 4, tumors in the sphincter of Oddi [T1a(OD)]: 5). The complete resection rate was 60.0% (18/30) (Tis: 66.7% [14/21], T1a[M]: 50.0% [2/4], and T1a[OD]: 40.0% [2/5]). The mean follow-up period was 46.8 months. The recurrence rate for all patients was 6.7% (2/30). The clinical complete resection rates of adenocarcinoma were 89.2% (25/28); rates for Tis, T1a(M), and T1a(OD) were 89.4% (17/19), 100% (4/4), and 80% (4/5), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EP may potentially achieve clinical complete resection of early stage (Tis and T1a) duodenal ampullary adenocarcinomas.

Comparable long-term survival outcomes of endoscopic therapy versus surgical therapy for T1-2N0M0 duodenal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The optimal treatment modality for T1-2N0M0 duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNETs) is still controversial. In this study, long-term survival outcomes were compared between the endoscopic therapy and surgical therapy for T1-2N0M0 DNETs using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with DNETs from the SEER database were selected from 2004 to 2015. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to compare long-term survival results between the endoscopic therapy and surgical therapy. An analysis of the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed to identify risk factors for patient prognoses. The 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline data.

RESULTS

A total of 816 patients with DNETs were included, of which 578 patients (70.8%) received endoscopic therapy and 238 patients (29.2%) received surgical therapy. Before the PSM, there was no difference between the two groups of patients with DNETs on long-term survival [5-year OS (86.1% vs. 87.9%, P = 0.45), 10-year OS (72.5% vs. 72.3%, P = 0.45)]. After adjusting covariates, we found endoscopic therapy and surgical therapy groups had comparable risks of overall survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.23, P = 0.409) and cancer-specific survival (HR 1.68, 95% CI 0.74-3.83, P = 0.214). In the post-PSM analysis, there was no discernible difference between the endoscopic therapy and surgical therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that for T1-2N0M0 DNETs patients, whose long-term OS and CSS results were similar for the endoscopic and surgical therapy groups. For these patients, endoscopic resection might be an optimal therapy modality.

The meaning of R1 resection after endoscopic removal of gastric, duodenal and rectal neuroendocrine tumors

INTRODUCTION

Well-differentiated gastric, duodenal, and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NETs) are rare diseases usually managed by endoscopic treatment. Although several endoscopic techniques are available, the number of patients with incomplete (R1) resection is significant.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the meaning of incomplete R1 findings after endoscopic resection in type I gastric NETs; nonfunctioning, non-ampullary duodenal NETs; and small rectal NETs. Data were identified by MEDLINE database search without publication date limitation.

EXPERT OPINION

An incomplete R1 finding may have no significant impact on a patient's clinical outcome, particularly in small G1 type I gastric NETs, which have an indolent course. A 'stepwise approach,' which uses more advanced endoscopic techniques, or minimally invasive surgery may be justified to achieve complete margin-free resection. This approach must balance the tumor features and the procedure-related risk of complications, particularly in the duodenum, where the role of deep endoscopic resections is limited due to the thin duodenal wall. Gastric and rectal NETs that are incompletely removed after initial resection are more easily amenable to deep endoscopic techniques. However, this might not be necessary for patients with comorbidities, elderly, or both due to the uncertainty of how R1 finding impacts a patient's clinical outcome.

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection versus modified endoscopic mucosal resection for duodenal neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As the incidence of duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNET) is steadily increasing, the role of endoscopic treatment for appropriate lesions is becoming more significant. We aimed to compare the outcomes according to lesion size and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for DNET treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for DNET between June 2000 and December 2019 were included. The clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes were investigated by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 104 cases underwent endoscopic resection for nonampullary DNET, including conventional EMR (n = 57), cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C, n = 19), and precut EMR (EMR-P, n = 28). The en bloc resection rates (100% vs. 94.7% vs. 96.4%) and histologic complete resection rates (45.6% vs. 52.6% vs. 57.1%) were not significantly different between the EMR, EMR-C, and EMR-P groups. The histologic complete resection rates were significantly higher in lesions < 10 mm than in lesions ≥ 10 mm (69.8% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.013). In lesions < 10 mm, perforation occurred more frequently in the modified EMR group than in the conventional EMR group (13.2% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.007). During the median follow-up period of 88.0 months, the recurrence-free survival (92.2% vs. 94.4% vs. 92.1%) and overall survival (98.0% vs. 88.1% vs. 100.0%) rates did not show significant differences between the EMR, EMR-C, and EMR-P groups.

CONCLUSION

Conventional EMR and modified EMR are feasible and effective for the treatment of nonampullary DNET sized < 10 mm and limited to mucosal and submucosal layer. Additionally, endoscopists should be aware of the high risk of perforation in modified EMR.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using a ligation device for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: a simple method

Introduction:

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNETs) smaller than 1 cm in diameter, without invasion to the muscularis propria, have a low risk of metastasis. Therefore, DNETs are frequently resected endoscopically. However, among the various procedures, the best fit for DNET in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and simplicity is unclear.

Methods:

Patients with DNET who underwent endoscopic submucosal resection using a ligation device (ESMR-L) at Kanagawa Cancer Center between May 2003 and December 2020 were studied retrospectively to evaluate clinical characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes.

Results:

Eleven consecutive patients with 12 lesions were treated with 12 sessions of ESMR-L. Lesions were discovered in patients at a median age of 68 (range, 50–83) years. One patient had two lesions at the time of the initial ESMR-L session. Eleven of the 12 lesions (91.7%) existed in the duodenal bulb, of which 10 (83.3%) were in the anterior wall, and the remaining one (8.3%) existed in the descending part of the duodenum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% and 75%, respectively. The rates of bleeding and perforation were both 0%. Among the four patients who had non-curative resections, two patients underwent additional surgery after ESMR-L. One patient had a local remnant tumor, and the other had lymph node metastasis. In cases of local remnant tumors, the vertical margin was positive in the ESMR-L specimen. In that case, ligation by the O-ring was insufficient, retrospectively. All patients had no recurrence during the median follow-up period of 5.7 years.

Discussion:

ESMR-L was the best fit for DNET within the indications for endoscopic resection. It is a simple procedure that enables easy and complete resection of DNETs without complications.