Prognostic Validity of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition TNM Staging System for Surgically Treated and Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Comprehensive Analysis of 254 Consecutive Patients From a Large Chinese Institution

Prognostic value of CT-based radiomics in grade 1-2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

Surgically resected grade 1-2 (G1-2) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) exhibit diverse clinical outcomes, highlighting the need for reliable prognostic biomarkers. Our study aimed to develop and validate CT-based radiomics model for predicting postsurgical outcome in patients with G1-2 PanNETs, and to compare its performance with the current clinical staging system.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included patients who underwent dynamic CT and subsequent curative resection for G1-2 PanNETs. A radiomics-based model (R-score) for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) was developed from a development set (441 patients from one institution) using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-Cox regression analysis. A clinical model (C-model) consisting of age and tumor stage according to the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system was built, and an integrative model combining the C-model and the R-score (CR-model) was developed using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Using an external test set (159 patients from another institution), the models' performance for predicting RFS and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Harrell's C-index. The incremental value of adding the R-score to the C-model was evaluated using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

RESULTS

The median follow-up periods were 68.3 and 59.7 months in the development and test sets, respectively. In the development set, 58 patients (13.2%) experienced recurrence and 35 (7.9%) died. In the test set, tumors recurred in 14 patients (8.8%) and 12 (7.5%) died. In the test set, the R-score had a C-index of 0.716 for RFS and 0.674 for OS. Compared with the C-model, the CR-model showed higher C-index (RFS, 0.734 vs. 0.662, p = 0.012; OS, 0.781 vs. 0.675, p = 0.043). CR-model also showed improved classification (NRI, 0.330, p < 0.001) and discrimination (IDI, 0.071, p < 0.001) for prediction of 3-year RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our CR-model outperformed the current clinical staging system in prediction of the prognosis for G1-2 PanNETs and added incremental value for predicting postoperative recurrence. The CR-model enables precise identification of high-risk patients, guiding personalized treatment planning to improve outcomes in surgically resected grade 1-2 PanNETs.

Prognostic value of tumor-to-parenchymal contrast enhancement ratio on portal venous-phase CT in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of tumor-to-parenchymal contrast enhancement ratio on portal venous-phase CT (CER on PVP) and compare its prognostic performance to prevailing grading and staging systems in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, data on 465 patients (development cohort) who underwent upfront curative-intent resection for PanNEN were used to assess the performance of CER on PVP and tumor size measured by CT (CT-Size) in predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) using Harrell's C-index and to determine their optimal cutoffs to stratify RFS using a multi-way partitioning algorithm. External data on 184 patients (test cohort) were used to validate the performance of CER on PVP in predicting RFS and overall survival (OS) and compare its predictive performance with those of CT-Size, 2019 World Health Organization classification system (WHO), and the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (AJCC).

RESULTS

In the test cohort, CER on PVP showed C-indexes of 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.91) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95) for predicting RFS and OS, respectively, which were higher than those for the WHO (C-index: 0.73 for RFS [p = .002] and 0.72 for OS [p = .004]) and AJCC (C-index, 0.67 for RFS [p = .002] and 0.58 for OS [p = .002]). CT-Size obtained C-indexes of 0.71 for RFS and 0.61 for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

CER on PVP showed superior predictive performance on postoperative survival in PanNEN than current grading and staging systems, indicating its potential as a noninvasive preoperative prognostic tool.

KEY POINTS

• In pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, the tumor-to-parenchymal enhancement ratio on portal venous-phase CT (CER on PVP) showed acceptable predictive performance of postoperative outcomes. • CER on PVP showed superior predictive performance of postoperative survival over the current WHO classification and AJCC staging system.

Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Survivals and Staging Systems of World Health Organization G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Background: In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined a new category of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms named G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs), whose surgical outcomes, long-term survivals and staging systems have not been well documented. Methods: Data from eligible patients with G3 p-NETs defined using the WHO 2017 grading classification at our institute were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Our study enrolled 80 patients with WHO G3 p-NETs, including 50 women and 30 men. The accumulative 5-year overall survival (OS) of G3 p-NETs was 29.7%. The current staging system by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) failed to discriminate the survival difference between Stage II and Stage III (p = 0.172), while notable differences with regard to the OS were statistically offered between each stage using the modified tumor−node−metastasis (mTNM) staging system (all p < 0.05). The OS of patients receiving surgical resection was significantly better than those with palliative operation (p < 0.05). Both the current AJCC system and proposed mTNM system were independent predictors for the OS of G3 p-NETs (p = 0.017 and p = 0.032, respectively). The 95% confidence intervals of the proposed mTNM staging system were smaller than that of the current AJCC system (0.626−8.217 and 0.329−10.013, respectively), indicating a relatively more accurate predictive ability. Conclusion: Our demonstration revealed that surgical resection was an independent predictor for the favorable prognosis of patients with G3 p-NETs. Moreover, the new mTNM staging system was more suitable and practical than the current AJCC system for stratifying G3 p-NETs into prognostic groups.

Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinomas: A Consecutive Analysis Based on Previous Study Results

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially defined pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms into well-differentiated tumors, namely G1/G2/G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and poorly differentiated carcinomas referring to G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (p-NECs). However, the surgical outcomes and prognostic factors of G3 p-NECs are still unclear. Methods: We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of eligible patients with G3 p-NECs defined by the WHO 2017 grading classification. Results: We eventually identified 120 patients with G3 p-NECs, including 72 females and 48 males, with a median age of 53 y. The 3-year overall survival (OS) of G3 p-NECs by Kaplan−Meier method was 37.3%. The 3-year OS for functional G3 p-NECs was 57.4%, which was statistically longer than 23.0% of non-functional ones (p = 0.002). Patients with surgical resection presented a significantly better 3-year OS than those with palliative operation (43.3% vs. 13.1%; p < 0.001). The 3-year OS for Stage Ⅰ, Stage Ⅱ, Stage Ⅲ, and Stage Ⅳ was 87.1%, 56.5%, 12.9%, and not applicable, respectively (p < 0.001). We demonstrated in a Cox regression model that palliative operation (p = 0.013), vascular infiltration (p = 0.039), lymph node involvement (p = 0.024), and distant metastasis (p = 0.016) were independent predictors of poor outcome for patients with surgically treated G3 p-NECs. Conclusion: Our data in the present analysis indicated that patients with G3 p-NECs could significantly benefit from surgical resection. Meanwhile, vascular infiltration, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis were independent predictors of poor outcome for these patients.

Development and Validation of a Modified Eighth AJCC Staging System for Primary Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

OBJECTIVE

To improve the prognostic accuracy of the eighth edition of AJCC staging system for pNETs with establishment and validation of a new staging system.

BACKGROUND

Validation of the updated eighth AJCC staging system for pNETs has been limited and controversial.

METHODS

Data from the SEER registry (1975-2016) (n = 3303) and a multi-institutional database (2000-2016) (n = 825) was used as development and validation cohorts, respectively. A mTNM was proposed by maintaining the eighth AJCC T and M definitions, and the recently proposed N status as N0 (no LNM), N1 (1-3 LNM), and N2 (≥4 LNM), but adopting a new stage classification.

RESULTS

The eighth TNM staging system failed to stratify patients with stage I versus IIA, stage IIB versus IIIA, and overall stage I versus II relative to long-term OS in both database. There was a monotonic decrement in survival based on the proposed mTNM staging classification among patients derived from both the SEER (5-year OS, stage I 87.0% vs stage II 80.3% vs stage III 72.9% vs stage IV 57.2%, all P < 0.001), and multi-institutional (5-year OS, stage I 97.6% vs stage II 82.7% vs stage III 78.4% vs stage IV 50.0%, all P < 0.05) datasets. On multivariable analysis, mTNM staging remained strongly associated with prognosis, as the hazard of death incrementally increased with each stage among patients in the 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSION

A mTNM pNETs clinical staging system using N0, N1, N2 nodal categories was better at stratifying patients relative to long-term OS than the eighth AJCC staging.

Prognostic validity of the American joint committee on cancer eighth edition staging system for well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) made improvements for staging pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) in its 8th Edition; however, multicenter studies were not included.

METHODS

We collected multicenter datasets (n = 1,086, between 2004 and 2018) to validate the value of AJCC 8 and other coexisting staging systems through univariate and multivariate analysis for well-differentiated (G1/G2) pNETs.

RESULTS

Compared to other coexisting staging systems, AJCC 7 only included 12 (1.1%) patients with stage III tumors. Patients with European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) stage IIB disease had a higher risk of death than patients with stage IIIA (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.376 vs. 4.322). For the modified ENETS staging system, patients with stage IIB disease had a higher risk of death than patients with stage III (HR: 6.078 vs. 5.341). According to AJCC 8, the proportions of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV were 25.7%, 40.3%, 23.6%, and 10.4%, respectively. As the stage advanced, the median survival time decreased (NA, 144.7, 100.8, 72.0 months, respectively), and the risk of death increased (HR: II = 3.145, III = 5.925, and IV = 8.762).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that AJCC 8 had a more reasonable proportional distribution and the risk of death was better correlated with disease stage.

Biliary Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Analysis of Prognostic Factors and Development and Validation of a Nomogram

Background

For this study, we explored the prognostic profiles of biliary neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) patients and identified factors related to prognosis. Further, we developed and validated an effective nomogram to predict the overall survival (OS) of individual patients with biliary NENs.

Methods

We included a total of 446 biliary NENs patients from the SEER database. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to determine survival time. We employed univariate and multivariate Cox analyses to estimate hazard ratios to identify prognostic factors. We constructed a predictive nomogram based on the results of the multivariate analyses. In addition, we included 28 biliary NENs cases from our center as an external validation cohort.

Results

The median survival time of biliary NENs from the SEER database was 31 months, and the value of gallbladder NENs (23 months) was significantly shorter than that of the bile duct (45 months) and ampulla of Vater (33.5 months, p=0.023). Multivariate Cox analyses indicated that age, tumor size, pathological classification, SEER stage, and surgery were independent variables associated with survival. The constructed prognostic nomogram demonstrated good calibration and discrimination C-index values of 0.783 and 0.795 in the training and validation dataset, respectively.

Conclusion

Age, tumor size, pathological classification, SEER stage, and surgery were predictors for the survival of biliary NENs. We developed a nomogram that could determine the 3-year and 5-year OS rates. Through validation of our central database, the novel nomogram is a useful tool for clinicians in estimating individual survival among biliary NENs patients.

Prognostic significance of extracellular volume fraction with equilibrium contrast-enhanced computed tomography for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

BACKGROUND

/Objectives: Identifying reliable pretreatment imaging biomarkers for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PanNEN) is a key imperative. Extracellular volume (ECV) fraction quantified with equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT can be easily integrated into routine examinations. This study aimed to determine whether ECV fraction with equilibrium contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) could predict long-term outcomes in patients with PanNEN.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational study of 80 patients pathologically diagnosed with PanNEN at a single institution. ECV fraction of the primary lesion was calculated using region-of-interest measurement within PanNEN and the aorta on unenhanced and equilibrium CECT. The impact of clinical factors and tumor ECV fraction on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models. The correlation between WHO classification and tumor ECV fraction was evaluated using Kendall rank correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

PFS and OS rates were estimated as 93.4% and 94.6%, 78.7% and 86.2%, 78.7% and 77.0%, and 78.7% and 66.6% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.95, P = 0.003), WHO classification (HR = 12.27, P = 0.003), and tumor ECV fraction (HR = 11.93, P = 0.039) were independent predictors of PFS. Patient age (HR = 1.11, P < 0.001), UICC stage (HR = 3.14, P = 0.001), and tumor ECV fraction (HR = 5.27, P = 0.024) were independent significant variables for predicting OS. Tumor ECV fraction had a weak inverse relationship with WHO classification (P = 0.045, τ = -0.178).

CONCLUSIONS

ECV fraction determined by equilibrium CECT and UICC stage may predict survival in patients with PanNEN.

The 8th Edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging for Hepato-pancreato-biliary Cancer: A Review and Update

CONTEXT.—

Cancer staging provides critical information for patients and treating physicians to battle against cancer, predict prognosis, and guide treatment decisions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system uses a tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) scoring algorithm and is the foremost classification system for adult cancers. This system is updated every 6 to 8 years to allow sufficient time for implementation of changes and for relevant examination and discussion of data validating those changes in staging.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the updates in the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system on hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The 8th edition, published in 2016 and implemented on January 1, 2018, has been in use for approximately 3 years. Compared with the 7th edition, some of the changes are quite radical. This review aims to provide a summary of the changes/updates of the 8th edition with focus on hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and evaluate its performance through literature review.

A comprehensive validation of the novel 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual for the long-term survivals of patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Histologically, the World Health Organization has classified pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (p-NENs) into well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (G1/G2 p-NETs) and poorly-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (G3 p-NECs) based on tumor mitotic counts and Ki-67 index. Recently, the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging manual has incorporated some major changes in 2017 that the TNM staging system for p-NENs should only be applied to well-differentiated G1/G2 p-NETs, while poorly-differentiated G3 p-NECs be classified according to the new system for pancreatic exocrine adenocarcinomas. However, this new manual for p-NENs has seldom been evaluated.Data of patients with both G1/G2 and G3 non-functional p-NENs (NF-p-NENs) from our institution was retrospectively collected and analyzed using 2 new AJCC 8th staging systems. We also made survival comparisons between the 8th and 7th edition system separately for different subgroups.For G1/G2 NF-p-NETs, there were 52 patients classified in AJCC 8th edition stage I, 40 in stage II, 41 in stage III and 19 in stage IV. As for G3 NF-p-NECs, 17, 19, 24, and 18 patients were respectively defined from AJCC 8th edition stage I to stage IV. In terms of the AJCC 7th staging system, the 230 patients with NF-p-NENs were totally distributed from stage I to stage IV (94, 63, 36, 37, respectively). For the survival analysis of both G1/G2 NF-p-NETs and G3 NF-p-NECs, the AJCC 7th edition system failed to discriminate the survival differences when compared stage III with stage II or stage IV (P > .05), while the 8th edition ones could perfectly allocate patients into 4 statistically different groups (P < .05). The HCIs of AJCC 8th stage for G1/G2 NF-p-NETs [HCI=0.658, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.602-0.741] and stage for G3 NF-p-NECs (HCI=0.704, 95% CI=0.595-0.813) was both statistically larger than those of AJCC 7th stage for different grading NF-p-NENs [(HCI=0.578, 95% CI=0.557-0.649; P=.031), (HCI=0.546, 95% CI=0.531-0.636; P = .019); respectively], indicating a more accurate predictive ability for the survivals of NF-p-NENs.Our data suggested the 2 new AJCC 8th staging systems were superior to its 7th edition for patients with both G1/G2 NF-p-NETs and G3 NF-p-NECs.

Clinical Features and Long-Term Survival of Metastatic Hepatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Secondary to Gastroenteropancreatic Site: An Analysis by Applying the Grading Classification

Method

Data of patients who were surgically treated and clinicopathologically diagnosed as (MH)-NENs secondary to (GEP)-NENs at West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2006 to December 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed by the grading classification for (GEP)-NENs.

Results

We identified 150 patients with (MH)-NENs secondary to (GEP)-NENs, including 10 patients with G1 NETs, 26 with G2 NETs, 33 with G3 NETs, and 81 with G3 NECs. There were significant differences between patients with G1/G2/G3 NETs and those with G3 NECs, such as age at diagnosis (P=0.041), synchronous liver lesion (P=0.032), incidental diagnosis (P=0.014), tumor largest diameter (P=0.047), vascular invasion (P=0.017), and extrahepatic metastatic disease (P=0.029). The estimated 3-year overall survival for patients with G1 NETs, G2 NETs, G3 NETs, and G3 NECs was 100%, 79.4%, 49.5%, and 20.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). The survival of G1 NETs or G2 NETs was significantly better than that of G3 NETs (P=0.013, P=0.037, respectively) and G3 NECs (P=0.001, P < 0.001; respectively). Patients with G3 NECs present notably worse survival than those with G3 NETs (P=0.012), while survival comparison between G1 NETs and G2 NETs was not statistically different (P=0.131). The grading classification for (GEP)-NENs was an effective independent predictor of survival for (MH)-NENs secondary to (GEP)-NENs (hazard ratio: 4.234; 95% confidence intervals: 1.984–6.763; P=0.003).

Conclusion

Our demonstration revealed that the grading classification for (GEP)-NENs could well stratify (MH)-NENs secondary to (GEP)-NENs into prognostic groups and supported its wide use in clinical practice.

World Health Organization grading classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a comprehensive analysis from a large Chinese institution

Background

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (p-NENs) are a group of highly heterogeneous tumors with distinct clinicopathological features and long-term prognosis. In 2017, in order to better stratify patients into prognostic groups and predicting their outcomes, World Health Organization (WHO) officially updated its grading system for p-NENs which distinguished these neoplasms among Grading 1 (G1) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs), G2 p-NETs, G3 p-NETs and G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (p-NECs). However, this new grading classification for p-NENs has not yet been rigorously validated.

Methods

Data of patients who were surgically treated and histopathologically diagnosed as p-NENs at West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2002 to December 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed according the novel WHO 2017 grading classification.

Results

We eventually enrolled 480 eligible patients with p-NENs in our present study, in which 150 patients with WHO 2017 G1 p-NETs, 158 with G2 p-NETs, 64 with G3 p-NETs and 108 with G3 p-NECs were identified. The estimated 5-year overall survival for patients with G1 p-NETs, G2 p-NETs, G3 p-NETs and G3 p-NECs was 75.8, 58.4, 35.1 and 11.1%, with a median survival time of 85.3mons, 67.4mons, 51.3mons and 26.8mons, respectively. Patients with G2 p-NETs present notably worse survival than those with G1 p-NETs (P = 0.03). Survival of G3 p-NETs were significantly worse than that of G1 p-NETs or G2 p-NETs (P < 0.001, P = 0.023, respectively), as well as that when comparing G3 p-NECs with G1 p-NETs or G2 p-NETs (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Patients with G3 p-NECs showed statistically shorter survival than those with G3 p-NETs (P < 0.001). Both WHO 2017 and 2010 grading criteria could be independent predictor for the OS of p-NENs (P = 0.016, P = 0.022; respectively). The 95% confidence intervals of WHO 2017 grading classification (0.983–9.454) was slightly smaller than that of WHO 2010 criteria (0.201–13.374), indicating a relatively more accurate predicting ability for the prognosis of p-NENs.

Conclusion

The WHO 2017 grading classification for p-NENs could successfully allocate patients into four groups with distinct clinical features and significant survival differences, which might be superior to the WHO 2010 criteria for its better prognostic stratification and more accurate predicting ability.

Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Lymph Node Metastases of Resected Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical strategy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is unknown. However, current guidelines recommend a watch-and-wait strategy for small nonfunctional PNETs (NF-PNETs). The aim of this study is to investigate the risk stratification and prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis (LNM) of PNETs to guide decision-making for lymphadenectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies reporting either risk factors of LNM in resected PNETs or survival of patients with LNM. The weighted average incidence of LNM was calculated according to tumor characteristics. Random-effects metaanalyses were performed, and pooled hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the impact of LNM on overall survival (OS). In subgroup analyses, NF-PNETs were assessed.

RESULTS

From a total of 5883 articles, 98 retrospective studies with 13,374 patients undergoing resection for PNET were included. In all PNETs, the weighted median rates of LNM were 11.5% for small (≤ 2 cm) PNETs and 15.8% for G1 PNETs. In NF-PNETs, the rates were 11.2% for small PNETs and 10.3% for G1 PNETs. LNM of all PNETs (HR 3.87, 95% CI 3.00-4.99, P < 0.001) and NF-PNETs (HR 4.98, 95% CI 2.81-8.83, P < 0.001) was associated with worse OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LNM is potentially prevalent even in small and well-differentiated PNETs and is associated with worse prognosis. A watch-and-wait strategy for small NF-PNETs should be reappraised, and oncologic resection with lymphadenectomy can be considered. Prospective and controlled studies are needed in the future.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A review of serum biomarkers, staging, and management

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with complicated treatment options that depend on pathological grading, clinical staging, and presence of symptoms related to hormonal secretion. With regard to diagnosis, remarkable advances have been made: Chromogranin A is recommended as a general marker for pNETs. But other new biomarker modalities, like circulating tumor cells, multiple transcript analysis, microRNA profile, and cytokines, should be clarified in future investigations before clinical application. Therefore, the currently available serum biomarkers are insufficient for diagnosis, but reasonably acceptable in evaluating the prognosis of and response to treatments during follow-up of pNETs. Surgical resection is still the only curative therapeutic option for localized pNETs. However, a debulking operation has also been proven to be effective for controlling the disease. As for drug therapy, steroids and somatostatin analogues are the first-line therapy for those with positive expression of somatostatin receptor, while everolimus and sunitinib represent important progress for the treatment of patients with advanced pNETs. Great progress has been achieved in the combination of systematic therapy with local control treatments. The optimal timing of local control intervention, planning of sequential therapies, and implementation of multidisciplinary care remain pending.

Survivals of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas: An in-depth analysis by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th tumor-node-metastasis staging manual

Recently, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging manual stipulated the World Health Organization (WHO) G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (p-NECs) should all be classified by the system for pancreatic exocrine adenocarcinomas, which had ignored the heterogeneity of G3 p-NECs. We focused on demonstrating whether the heterogeneous subgroups of G3 p-NECs would influence the accurate application of AJCC 8th staging systems.G3 p-NECs were divided into well-differentiated and poorly-differentiated subgroups, whose clinical features and overall survival (OS) were compared. Survival analysis by applying 2 new AJCC 8th staging systems to well-differentiated G3 p-NECs were performed to validate whether these subgroup patients should also be staged by the system proposed for all G3 p-NECs.We enrolled 172 patients who were histopathologically diagnosed as G3 p-NECs, including 64 well-differentiated G3 p-NECs and 108 poorly-differentiated ones, whose patient demographics and tumor characteristics present no notably differences (P > .05), except their Ki-67 index and mitotic rate (P = .031, P = .025; respectively). The estimated OS of well-differentiated G3 p-NECs was significantly better than those of poorly-differentiated tumors (P < .001). When applying the new AJCC system for all G3 p-NECs to well-differentiated G3 tumors, 18, 22, 12, and 12 patients were respectively distributed in the new AJCC Stage I, Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV. Using the AJCC 8th staging system for WHO G1/G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) to well-differentiated G3 p-NECs, there were 5, 25, 22, and 12 patients classified from the new AJCC Stage I to Stage IV, respectively. The system for G1/G2 p-NETs could significantly differentiate the survival differences between each new stage of well-differentiated G3 p-NECs (P < .05), while comparisons of survivals between Stage II with Stage III or Stage III with Stage IV by the system for G3 p-NECs were not statistically different (P = .334, P = .073; respectively).G3 p-NECs were heterogeneous with well-differentiated and poorly-differentiated subgroups. Both AJCC 8th staging systems proposed for all G3 p-NECs and G1/G2 p-NETs were practical for well-differentiated G3 p-NECs, while the one originally applied to G1/G2 p-NETs appeared to be superior in performance due to its better prognostic stratification and more accurate predicting ability.

Prognostic and predictive factors on overall survival and surgical outcomes in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: recent advances and controversies

Introduction: Recent advances in diagnostic modalities and therapeutic agents have raised the importance of prognostic factors in predicting overall survival, as well as predictive factors for surgical outcomes, in tailoring therapeutic strategies of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNENs).Areas covered: Numerous recent studies of panNEN patients report the prognostic values of a number of clinically related factors (clinical, laboratory, imaging, treatment-related factors), pathological factors (histological, classification, grading) and molecular factors on long-term survival. In addition, an increasing number of studies showed the usefulness of various factors, specifically biomarkers and molecular makers, in predicting recurrence and mortality related to surgical treatment. Recent findings (from the last 3 years) in each of these areas, as well as recent controversies, are reviewed.Expert commentary: The clinical importance of prognostic and predictive factors for panNENs is markedly increased for both overall outcome and post resection, as a result of recent advances in all aspects of the diagnosis, management and treatment of panNENs. Despite the proven prognostic utility of routinely used tumor grading/classification and staging systems, further studies are required to establish these novel prognostic factors to support their routine clinical use.