Study protocol for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided ethanol injection therapy for patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm: a multicentre prospective study

Comparison of EUS-guided ablation and surgical resection for nonfunctioning small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a propensity score-matching study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment strategies for small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) <2 cm in size are still under debate. The feasibility and safety of EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS-EA) have been demonstrated. However, sample sizes in previous studies were small with no comparative studies on surgery. Therefore, we aimed to compare the safety and long-term outcomes of EUS-EA with those of surgery for the management of nonfunctioning small PNETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with PNETs who were managed by EUS-EA (from 2011 to 2018) and surgery (from 2000 to 2018) at Asan Medical Center. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to increase comparability. The primary outcome was early and late major adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) after treatment. Secondary outcomes were 10-year overall (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates, length of hospital stay, and development of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 97 and 188 patients were included in the EUS-EA and surgery groups, respectively. PSM created 89 matched pairs. EUS-EA was associated with a significantly lower rate of early major adverse events (0% vs 11.2%, P = .003). Late major adverse events occurred more frequently after surgery, with no significant difference between groups (3.4% vs 10.1%, P = .07). Both treatment modalities showed comparable 10-year OS and DSS rates. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-EA group (4 days vs 14.1 days, P < .001), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency was less common after EUS-EA than after surgery (33.3% vs 48.6%, P = .121).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-EA had fewer adverse events and a shorter hospital stay with similar OS and DSS rates compared with surgery, suggesting that EUS-EA may be a preferred alternative to surgical resection in selected patients with nonfunctioning small PNETs.

Endoscopic techniques for diagnosis and treatment of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Where we are

BACKGROUND

The correct localization of the primary tumor site and a complete histological diagnosis represent the milestones for the proper management of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs).

AIM

To analyze current evidence on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis/treatment of GEP-NENs.

METHODS

An extensive bibliographical search was performed in PubMed to identify guidelines and primary literature (retrospective and prospective studies, systematic reviews, case series) published in the last 15 years, using both medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free-language keywords: gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms; endoscopy; ultrasound endoscopy; capsule endoscopy; double-balloon enteroscopy; diagnosis; therapy; staging.

RESULTS

In the diagnostic setting, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) represents the diagnostic gold standard for pancreatic NENs and the technique of choice for the locoregional staging of gastric, duodenal and rectal NENs. The diagnosis of small bowel NENs (sbNENs) has been improved with the advent of video capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy, which allow for direct visualization of the entire small bowel; however, data regarding the efficacy/safety of these techniques in the detection of sbNENs are scanty and often inconclusive. From a therapeutic point of view, endoscopic removal is the treatment of choice for the majority of gastric NENs (type 1/2), for well-differentiated localized nonmetastatic duodenal NENs < 1 cm, confined to the submucosa layer and for < 10 mm, stage T1–T2, rectal NENs. EUS-guided pancreatic locoregional ablative treatments have been proposed in recent studies with promising results in order to control symptoms or reduce tumor burden in selected patients.

CONCLUSION

Standard axial endoscopy and EUS still play a pivotal role in several GEP-NENs. Advanced techniques for increasing the rate of R0 resection should be reserved for high-volume referral centers.