The Risk Factors for Metastasis in Non-Ampullary Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumors Measuring 20 mm or Less in Diameter

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (d-NETs) ≤ 10 mm in size, confined to the submucosal layer, without lymph node or distant metastasis, can be treated safely and effectively by endoscopic management. However, most results are based on limited data and short follow-up outcomes. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for d-NETs. We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients with 68 d-NETs who had undergone endoscopic resection at two hospitals between January 2009 and December 2021. En-bloc resection, endoscopically complete resection, and histopathologically complete resection rates were evaluated as short-term outcomes. Furthermore, long-term outcomes were analyzed in 46 patients with 50 d-NETs with a follow-up period of > 1 year. The overall en-bloc, endoscopically complete, and histopathologically complete resection rates were 92.6% (63/68), 100% (68/68), and 69.1% (47/68), respectively. Tumor size (> 5 mm) was the only predictive factor for histopathologically incomplete resection (p = 0.015). The procedure-related bleeding and perforation rates were 0% and 5.9%, respectively. No recurrences were observed in patients with histopathologically complete resection and those with histopathologically incomplete resection at a median follow-up period of 48 months (range 12-132 months). Endoscopic resection for d-NETs ≤ 10 mm in size, limited to the submucosal layer, and without lymph node or distant metastasis provides favorable long-term outcomes when endoscopically complete resection is achieved.

Clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors in a large Japanese national cohort

OBJECTIVES

Optimal management of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors (T1-GNETs) remains unknown, with few reports on their long-term prognosis. This study investigated the clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis of T1-GNETs.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with T1-GNET during 1991-2019 at 40 institutions in Japan.

RESULTS

Among 172 patients, endoscopic resection (ER), endoscopic surveillance, and surgery were performed in 84, 61, and 27, respectively, including 27, 77, and 2 patients with pT1a-M, pT1b-SM, and pT2 tumors, respectively. The median tumor diameter was 5 (range 0.8-55) mm. Four (2.9%) patients had lymph node metastasis (LNM); none had liver metastasis. LNM rates were significantly higher in tumors with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (15.8%; 3/19) than in those without (1.1%; 1/92) (P = 0.016). For tumors <10 mm, LVI and LNM rates were 18.4% (14/76) and 2.2% (2/90), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of tumors 10-20 mm (LVI 13.3%; 2/15, P = 0.211; and LNM 0%; 0/17, P = 1.0). However, these rates were significantly lower than those of tumors >20 mm (LVI 60%; 3/5, P = 0.021; and LNM 40%; 2/5, P = 0.039). No tumor recurrence or cause-specific death occurred during the median follow-up of 10.1 (1-25) years. The 10-year overall survival rate was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors showed indolent nature and favorable long-term prognoses. LVI could be useful in indicating the need for additional treatments. ER for risk prediction of LNM should be considered for tumors <10 mm and may be feasible for tumors 10-20 mm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) under the identifier UMIN000029927.

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.

Small bowel neuroendocrine tumours - casting the net wide

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our aim is to provide an overview of small bowel neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), clinical presentation, diagnosis algorithm and management options. We also highlight the latest evidence on management and suggest areas for future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Dodecanetetraacetic acid (DOTATATE) scan can detect NETs with an improved sensitivity than when compared with an Octreotide scan. It is complimentary to small bowel endoscopy that provides mucosal views and allows the delineation of small lesions undetectable on imaging. Surgical resection is the best management modality even in metastatic disease. Prognosis can be improved with the administration of somatostatin analogues and Evarolimus as second-line therapies.

SUMMARY

NETs are heterogenous tumours affecting most commonly the distal small bowel as single or multiple lesions. Their secretary behaviour can lead to symptoms, most commonly diarrhoea and weight loss. Metastases to the liver are associated with carcinoid syndrome.

Current status of the role of endoscopy in evaluation and management of gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The incidence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) has increased over the last several decades. In general, NETs are slow-growing neoplasms and the data on the natural history is still evolving. The availability and improved utilization of advanced imaging modalities have allowed the selection of cases suitable for endotherapy. In this regard, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a central imaging modality to assess the depth of infiltration in gastroduodenal as well as rectal NETs. Enhanced EUS modalities, including contrast-enhanced EUS and EUS elastography, reliably differentiate pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) from adenocarcinomas and may enable prediction of aggressive PNETs. With recent developments in therapeutic endoscopy, a large proportion of GEP-NETs can be safely managed endoscopically. Endoscopic resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), allow the safe removal of gastroduodenal and rectal NETs. Recent data indicate that modified EMR techniques may be superior to conventional EMR with regard to histologically complete resection. Device-assisted endoscopic full thickness resection is emerging as a safe and effective technique for upper gastrointestinal as well as rectal NETs. In selected cases with PNETs, who are otherwise unfit for surgery, EUS-guided ablation is increasingly being recognized as a safe treatment option. This review focusses on evidence-based approaches to endoscopic evaluation and the management of GEP-NETs with special emphasis on recent advancements.

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.

Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are the most common type of neuroendocrine tumors and are being increasingly identified in clinical practice. The diagnosis, staging, management, and surveillance of GEP-NETs rely heavily on endoscopy, and consequently, it is important for gastroenterologists to have a solid understanding of these tumors. This article reviews the presentation, diagnosis, and management of both localized and advanced GEP-NETs, with increased emphasis on the role of endoscopy, to enable gastroenterologists and other practitioners to have the necessary tools for the care of patients with these tumors.

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.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Favorable long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors are limited. We aimed to clarify it.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors endoscopically treated at our institute between January 2005 and June 2020 were included in this retrospective study. En bloc and R0 resection rates and adverse events were evaluated as short-term outcomes of endoscopic resection. The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates of patients after endoscopic resection were calculated as long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 34 patients with 34 lesions, 33 patients (97%) underwent endoscopic mucosal resection, and one (3%) underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection. En bloc resection was achieved in 33 lesions (97%). R0 resection was achieved in 20 lesions (59%). The median tumor size was 6 mm (range: 3-13). Thirty-one lesions (91%) and three lesions (9%) were classified as G1 and G2, respectively. Lymphovascular invasion was observed in six lesions (18%). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in four patients (12%) who were conservatively treated with endoscopic closure. All 34 patients were followed up without additional treatment after endoscopic resection, and no recurrence or metastasis developed during the median follow-up period of 47.9 months (range: 9.0-187.1). The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates were 87.1% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection provided a favorable long-term prognosis for patients with nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors without lymph node metastasis.

Prognostic factors for relapse in resected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neoplasms (GEP-NENs)can potentially be cured through surgical resection, but only 42-57% achieve 5-year disease-free survival.There is a lack of consensus regarding the factorsassociated withrelapse followingresection ofGEP-NENs.

METHODS

Asystematic review identified studies reporting factors associated with relapse in patients with GEP-NENs following resection of a primary tumour. Meta-analysis was performed to identify the factors prognostic for relapse-free survival (RFS)oroverall survival (OS).

RESULTS

63 studies comprising 13,715 patients were included; 56 studies reported on pancreatic NENs (12,418 patients), 24 reported on patients with grade 1-2 tumours (4,735 patients). Median follow-up was 44.2 months, median RFS was 32 months. Pooling of multivariable analyses of GEP-NENs (all sites and grades) found the following factors predicted worse RFS (all p values < 0.05): vascular resection performed, metastatic disease resected, grade 2 disease, grade 3 disease, tumour size > 20 mm, R1 resection, microvascular invasion, perineural invasion, Ki-67 > 5% and any lymph node positivity. In a subgroup of studies comprising exclusively of grade 1-2 GEP-NENs, R1 resection, perineural invasion, grade 2 disease, any lymph node positivity and tumour size > 20 mm predicted worse RFS (all p values < 0.05). Few OSdata were available for pooling; in univariableanalysis(entire cohort), grade 2 predicted worse OS (p = 0.007), whileR1 resectiondid not (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors prognostic for worse RFS following resection of a GEP-NEN identified in this meta-analysis could be included in post-curative treatment surveillance clinical guidelines and inform the stratification and inclusion criteria of future adjuvant trials.

Risk of preoperative understaging of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a plea for caution in the treatment strategy

PURPOSE

Pretreatment staging is the milestone for planning either surgical or endoscopic treatment in duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (dNENs). Herein, a series of surgically treated dNEN patients was evaluated to assess the concordance between the pre- and postsurgical staging.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dNENs, who underwent surgical resection observed at eight Italian tertiary referral centers. The presurgical TNM stage, based on the radiological and functional imaging, was compared with the pathological TNM stage, after surgery.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2019, 109 patients were included. Sixty-six patients had G1, 26 a G2, 7 a G3 dNEN (Ki-67 not available in 10 patients). In 46/109 patients (42%) there was disagreement between the pre- and postsurgical staging, being it understaged in 42 patients (38%), overstaged in 4 (3%). As regards understaging, in 25 patients (22.9%), metastatic loco-regional nodes (N) resulted undetected at both radiological and functional imaging. Understaging due to the presence of distal micrometastases (M) was observed in 2 cases (1.8%). Underestimation of tumor extent (T) was observed in 12 patients (11%); in three cases the tumor was understaged both in T and N extent.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional imaging has a poor detection rate for loco-regional nodes and micrometastases in the presurgical setting of the dNENs. These results represent important advice when local conservative approaches, such as endoscopy or local surgical excision are considered and it represents a strong recommendation to include endoscopic ultrasound in the preoperative tools for a more accurate local staging.

Survival and Disease Recurrence in Patients with Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumours-A Single Centre Cohort

Simple Summary

Neuroendocrine tumours of the upper part of the small intestine are rare. They are slow growing but may spread to lymph nodes or other organs already when the tumours are small. Such tumours may be treated by endoscopic removal or by an operation. In the current study we present the treatment results of 32 patients with this rare tumour. We found that the long-term survival was long, and patients more often died from other diseases. The survival was associated with the growth rate of the tumours and whether all the tumour tissue could be removed. Endoscopic removal was sufficient for smaller tumours <10 mm, whereas a high proportion of tumours 10–20 mm have lymph node metastases that must be removed by an operation to make patients tumour free. None of the tumours that were perceived as cured after removal recurred after an average follow-up time of 4.8 years.

Abstract

Background: Duodenal neuroendocrine tumours (D-NETs) are rare but increasingly diagnosed. This study aimed to assess the overall survival and recurrence rate among patients treated for D-NETs. Methods: Patients with D-NETs were retrospectively reviewed with a median follow-up time of 4.8 years (range 0.0–17.2 years). Results: A total of 32 patients with median age 68.0 years were identified. Fifteen patients underwent surgery while ten patients underwent endoscopic treatment. Mean estimated overall survival for the entire population was 12.1 years (95% CI 9.5–14.7 years), while 5-year overall survival was 81.3%. Tumour grade G1 was associated with longer mean estimated survival compared to G2 tumours (13.2 years versus 4.4 years, p = 0.010). None of the 23 patients who underwent presumed radical endoscopic or surgical resection had disease recurrence during follow-up. Tumours <10 mm could be treated endoscopically whereas a high proportion of patients with tumours 10–20 mm should be considered for surgery. Conclusion: Patients with D-NETs had long overall survival, and mortality was more influenced by other diseases. Both endoscopic and surgical resections were effective as no recurrences were diagnosed during follow-up.

Comparison of endoscopic resection techniques for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: systematic review

Background and study aims  Regardless of size, duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (dNETs) should be considered potentially malignant. A complete resection without complications is essential to increase safety procedures. The aim of this review was to describe effectiveness and possible complications of endoscopic techniques resection for resectioning dNETs in patients with tumors ≤ 20 mm in diameter. Methods  An electronic bibliographic search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar virtual databases. The types of intervention were endoscopic mucosal resection alone (EMR) or with cap (EMR-C), with a ligation device (EMR-L), with previous elevation of the tumor (EMR-I) or with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); argon plasm coagulation (APC), and polypectomy. The outcome measures adopted were presence of free margin associated with tumor resection, tumor recurrence, complications (bleeding and perforation), and length of the procedure. Results  Ten publications were included with the result of 224 dNET resections. EMR alone and polypectomy resulted in the most significantly compromised margin. The most frequent complication was bleeding (n = 21), followed by perforation (n = 8). Recurrence occurred in 13 cases, the majority of those under EMR or EMR-I. Conclusions  EMR-C or EMR-I should be preferred for resectioning of dNETs. Polypectomy should not be indicated for resection of dNETs due to the high occurrence of incomplete resections. EMR alone must be avoided due a higher frequency of compromised margin and recurrent surgery. ESD was associated with no recurrence, however, but an increased occurrence of bleeding and perforation.

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with nonampullary duodenal carcinoid tumors treated with endoscopic therapy versus surgical resection: analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic therapy (ET) has been used to treat nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (NAD-NETs) ≤10 mm in size, but data on long-term outcomes are limited. In addition, management of 11- to 19-mm NAD-NETs is not well defined because of variable estimates of risk of metastasis. We aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors of metastasis of NAD-NETs ≤19 mm and evaluate the long-term survival of patients after ET as compared with radical surgery.

METHODS

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result database was used to identify 1243 patients with T1-2 histologically confirmed NAD-NETs ≤19 mm in size. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 4.8% of cases had metastasis at the time of diagnosis, with lower prevalence in ≤10-mm lesions (3.1%) versus 11- to 19-mm lesions (11.7%, P < .001). The risk factors for metastases included invasion to the muscularis propria (odds ratio, 25.95; 95% confidence interval, 9.01-76.70), age <65 years (odds ratio, 1.93), submucosal involvement (odds ratio, 3.1), and 11 to 19 mm in size (vs ≤10 mm). In patients with well- to moderately differentiated T1-2N0M0 NAD-NETs ≤19 mm confined to the mucosa/submucosa who underwent ET or surgery, the 5-year CSS was 100%. The 5-year OS was similar between the ≤10-mm and 11- to 19-mm groups (86.6% vs 91.0%, P = .31) and the ET and surgery groups (87.4% vs 87.5%, P = .823).

CONCLUSIONS

In NAD-NETs, invasion to the muscularis propria is the strongest risk factor for metastasis. In the absence of metastasis, in lesions with well/moderate differentiation and without muscle invasion, ET is adequate for NAD-NETs ≤10 mm and is a viable option for 11- to 19-mm lesions.

The Role of Endoscopy in Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors

Small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) represent approximately one-third of NETs of the gastrointestinal tract, and their incidence is increasing. When determining if endoscopic resection is appropriate, endoscopic ultrasound is used to assess the lesion size and depth of invasion for duodenal NETs. A number of techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), band-assisted EMR (band-EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and over-the-scope clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), have been studied; however, the best technique for endoscopic resection remains unclear. The vast majority of currently available data are retrospective, and prospective studies with longer follow-up times are required. For jejunal and ileal NETs, endoscopic techniques such as video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and balloon enteroscopy (BE) assist in diagnosis. This includes localization of the primary NET in metastatic disease where initial workup has been negative, and the identification of multifocal disease, which may change management and prognostication.

The value of endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal lesions: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

To observe and preliminarily evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of non-ampullary duodenal lesions (NADLs).

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included 84 patients who underwent endoscopic resection (ER) with non-ampullary duodenal lesions, between March 2010 and November 2020, at the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (Beijing, China). Data on patient demographics, therapeutic outcomes, and follow-up results were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 44 patients undergoing EMR, and 40 patients accepting ESD. The overall en bloc resection rate was 98.8% (83/84). For the neoplastic lesions, the overall en bloc resection rate and curative rate were 98.5% (67/68) and 89.7% (61/68), respectively. The procedure-related bleeding and perforation rates were 2.4% and 10.7%, respectively. Univariate analysis results indicated that the main correlation factor of non-curative pathologic resection was tumor size (p = 0.004) and resection size (P < 0.01). There showed a higher curative rate in patients with tumors less than 25 mm in diameter. Multivariate logistic regression analyses determined that the tumor size (OR 0.935; 95% CI 0.878-0.995; P = 0.035) was associated with non-curative resection. No recurrences were observed in patients who had undergone a complete ER during a follow-up period of 42.8 months (range, 3-127 months).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection is an effective, safe, and feasible treatment for non-ampullary duodenal lesions.

A "Watch and Wait" Strategy Involving Regular Endoscopic Surveillance Is Safe for Many Patients with Small, Sporadic, Grade 1, Non-Ampullary, Non-Functioning Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumours

INTRODUCTION

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumours (d-NETs) are rare but are increasing in incidence. Current ENETS guidelines advocate resection of all localized d-NETs. However, "watch and wait" may be appropriate for some localized, small, grade 1, non-functioning, non-ampullary d-NETs. We evaluated whether patients with such d-NETs who chose "watch and wait" involving regular endoscopic surveillance had equivalent disease-related outcomes to patients undergoing endoscopic or surgical resection.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with histologically confirmed d-NETs at Liverpool ENETS Centre of Excellence 2007-2020.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were diagnosed with d-NET of which 50 were sporadic, non-functioning, non-ampullary tumours. Patient treatment groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and tumour location and grade, but unsurprisingly, larger tumours (median diameter 17 mm [p < 0.0001]) were found in the surgically treated group. Five patients underwent surgical resection with no evidence of tumour recurrence or disease-related death. Twelve patients underwent endoscopic resection (ER), with 1 local recurrence detected during follow-up. Thirty patients (28 with d-NETs ≤10 mm) underwent "watch and wait" with resection only if tumours increased in size. The d-NETs in 28/30 patients remained stable or decreased in size over a median 27 months (IQR: 15-48, R: 3-98). In 7 patients, the d-NET was completely removed by avulsion during diagnostic biopsy and was not seen at subsequent endoscopies. Only 2 patients showed increased d-NET size during surveillance, of whom only one was fit for ER. No NET-related deaths were documented during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the localized, ≤10 mm, grade 1, non-functioning, non-ampullary d-NETs in this cohort behaved indolently with very low risks of progression and no tumour-related deaths. "Watch and wait," therefore, appears to be a safe alternative management strategy for selected d-NETs.

Gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasia: The rules for non-operative management

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) with favorable pathological and clinical features may be considered as indolent lesions, and therefore be amenable to conservative management. According to the primary tumor site, different non-aggressive approaches, based on endoscopic resection or simple active surveillance, can be proposed to selected patients fulfilling specific criteria. Tumor size, Ki67 proliferative index and depth of invasion are markers that can be used in order to identify these subjects. Patients with type I gastric NENs <1 cm as well as those with non-ampullary duodenal NENs <1 cm with no associated syndrome can be safely managed by endoscopic resection. On the other hand, an active surveillance approach is preferred over surgery for patients with asymptomatic, non-functioning pancreatic NENs ≤2 cm without dilation of the main pancreatic duct or bile duct. As far as NENs of the appendix are concerned, appendectomy should be considered as curative when a R0 resection has been achieved in the presence of a tumor ≤1.5 cm, graded as G1 and without lymphovascular invasion. Finally, G1 rectal NENs ≤1 cm without invasion of the muscular layer can be safely treated by endoscopic resection. Therefore, surgeons should be aware of the existence of indolent GEP-NENs, in order to avoid unnecessary operations with associated postoperative complications.

Systematic review: management of localised low-grade upper gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND

Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of the stomach and duodenum are rare, but are increasing in incidence. Optimal management of localised, low-grade gastric and duodenal NETs remains controversial.

AIMS

To systematically review recent literature that has evaluated the management of localised low-grade gastric and duodenal NETs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted. Articles were screened and eligible articles fully assessed. Additional articles were identified through the included articles' reference lists.

RESULTS

Several relevant retrospective case series were identified, but there was considerable heterogeneity between studies and they reported a variety of parameters. Type I gastric NETs had an excellent prognosis and conservative management approaches such as endoscopic surveillance/resection were appropriate in most cases. Many type III gastric NETs were low grade and appeared to have a better prognosis than has previously been appreciated. Endoscopic rather than surgical resection was therefore effective in some patients who had small, low-grade tumours. Duodenal NETs were more heterogenous. Endoscopic resection was generally safe and effective in patients who had small, low-grade, nonfunctional, non-ampullary tumours. However, some patients, especially those with larger or ampullary duodenal NETs, required surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Most type I gastric NETs behave indolently and surgical resection is only rarely indicated. Some type III gastric and duodenal NETs have a worse prognosis, but selected patients who have small, localised, nonfunctional, low-grade tumours are adequately and safely treated by endoscopic resection. Due to the complexity of this area, a multidisciplinary approach to management is strongly recommended.

Surgical resection for duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasia: Outcome, prognostic factors and risk of metastases

BACKGROUND

Clinical management of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (dNEN) is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of surgical management and to identify risk factors for metastatic disease.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for dNEN were retrospectively analysed. Clinicopathologic features, perioperative outcome and survival were assessed. A literature review with focus on risk factors for metastatic disease was additionally performed.

RESULTS

24 patients were identified. Out of 22 patients presenting with their primary tumour, 20 patients underwent curative resection and 18 patients received curative resection with systematic lymphadenectomy. 17 patients underwent formal oncological resection. Surgical mortality was 1 out of 24 patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 67% in the entire cohort, 71% in patients undergoing resection for their primary tumour, 72% for patients undergoing curative resection with systematic lymphadenectomy, 75% for pN0 and 70% for pN1 tumours. Lymph node metastases were identified in 15 patients undergoing systematic lymphadenectomy, including 9 of 14 patients with tumours smaller than 2 cm, and 6 of 10 patients with G1 tumours. Literature review confirmed a high risk of metastases in small (58%) or G1 (24%) tumours. Tumour grade and angioinvasion were significantly associated with overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Even well differentiated or small dNEN harbour a considerable risk of metastases. These data challenge the concepts of surveillance, local resection and endoscopic management for dNEN based on size and grading. Angioinvasion was identified as a strong negative predictor of overall and disease-free survival in dNEN.

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: A retrospective, single-center study

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, and risk factors associated with lymph node (LN) metastasis are still not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors of LN metastasis in duodenal NETs based on the final histopathologic results and clinical follow-up data.This study included a total of 44 duodenal NETs in 38 patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical resection between January 2008 and December 2015. Diagnosis of duodenal NETs was confirmed based on immunohistochemical staining of chromogranin A, synaptophysin, and CD56; the clinicopathologic records were collected at the time of the initial diagnosis of duodenal NETs.Most duodenal NETs were small (≤1 cm in 33 tumors), World Health Organization (WHO) grade G1 (in 32 tumors), limited to the mucosa and/or submucosa (in 40 tumors), and located at the duodenal bulb (in 32 tumors). Of 44 tumors, lymphovascular invasion was present in 4 (9.1%), and among 38 patients, LN metastasis was detected in 4 (10.5%). LN metastases were significantly associated with the non-bulb location, tumor size >10 mm, tumor invasion into the muscularis propria or deeper, WHO grade G2, and lymphovascular invasion. During the mean follow-up period of 54.5 months (range, 24-123 months), recurrence occurred in 1 patient.Non-bulb location, tumor size >10 mm, invasion beyond the submucosa, WHO grade G2, and lymphovascular invasion are risk factors of LN metastasis in duodenal NETs. These findings can help clinicians choose the appropriate therapeutic modality for duodenal NETs.

Comparisons of therapeutic outcomes in patients with nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (NADNETs): A multicenter retrospective study

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNETs) are rare tumors that are occasionally found during upper endoscopies. The incidence of DNETs is increasing, although the data regarding treatment outcomes are insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment outcomes in patients with nonampullary DNETs who underwent endoscopic resection or surgery. We evaluated the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with nonampullary DNETs from 2004 to 2017 in 7 university hospitals. We retrospectively analyzed clinical characteristics and compared therapeutic outcomes based on the endoscopic lesion size and treatment method. We ultimately enrolled 60 patients with nonampullary DNETs who underwent endoscopic and surgical treatments. In the endoscopic treatment group, the en bloc resection, endoscopic complete resection (CR) and pathologic CR rates were 88%, 92%, and 50%, respectively. The endoscopic treatment group was divided into 3 subgroups based on the lesion size (1-5 mm, 6-10 mm, and ≥11 mm). The pathologic CR rate was significantly lower in the subgroup with a lesion size ≥11 mm (0%, P = .003) than those in the other 2 subgroups. Lymphovascular invasion occurred significantly more frequently (33.3%, P = .043) among those with a lesion size ≥11 mm. The pathologic CR rate in the surgical treatment group was higher (90.9%) than that in the endoscopic treatment group (50%, P = .017). Surgical treatment appears to be a more appropriate choice because of the risks of incomplete resection and lymphovascular invasion after endoscopic treatment for lesions larger than 11 mm.

Duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a still poorly recognized clinical entity

BACKGROUND

Duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (dNENs) are rare tumors, which usually show good prognosis. The optimal management of these tumors is still far from being clearly understood because of their rarity and the poor level of knowledge about their natural history. Herein, we have reviewed the literature on dNENs to collect and analyze the current data on epidemiology, diagnosis and management of these rare tumors.

METHODS

Bibliographical searches were performed in PubMed, using the following keywords: duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasm; duodenum; gastrinoma; diagnosis; therapy; guidelines. We searched for all relevant articles published over the last 15 years. Non-English language papers were excluded.

RESULTS

We reviewed the pertinent articles about dNENs. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsy is the cornerstone of the dNENs diagnostic process. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration/biopsy should be performed in order to locally stage the disease and in all cases of non-diagnostic endoscopy. Endoscopic or complete surgical removal of the primary lesion is the recommended treatment and is generally achievable for the majority of the patients. A less aggressive approach may be suggested for well-differentiated low-stage tumors. After NEN removal, patients should be closely followed-up especially during the first 3 years by endoscopic examination, imaging tests and CgA measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The multi-disciplinary approach and the preservation of the quality of life of the patients play a key role in the therapeutic process for dNENs. Further studies are needed to better define standardized guidelines specific to dNENs, including optimal management approaches and follow-up intervals.

Comparison of Recurrence Between Pancreatic and Duodenal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms After Curative Resection: A Single-Institution Analysis

BACKGROUND

The primary site of a neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) around the head of the pancreas is sometimes difficult to assess before resection, and the characteristics of the primary site around this region have not been elucidated for recurrence after curative resection. In this study, the clinicopathologic characteristics of pancreatic NEN (PanNEN) and duodenal NEN (DuNEN) were evaluated, and the risk factors as well as the recurrence types after resection were investigated.

METHODS

Consecutively diagnosed NEN patients at the authors' hospital from January 2000 to July 2016 were evaluated in this study. For 117 PanNEN patients and 31 non-ampullary DuNEN patients, R0 resection was achieved. The median follow-up period was 8.1 years.

RESULTS

In this study, 27 PanNEN patients (23.1%) had recurrences, with a median disease-free survival (DFS) of 133 months, whereas 11 DuNEN patients (35.5%) had recurrences, with a median DFS of 156 months. The PanNEN patients tended to have primary recurrence in the liver (85.2%), followed by lymph nodes (11.1%). The independent risk factors for short DFS were lymph node metastasis at resection (p = 0.001) and microvascular invasion (p = 0.048). In contrast, the DuNEN patients were likely to have lymph node metastasis (81.8%). The independent risk factors for short DFS were lymph node metastasis at resection (p = 0.003) and large diameter (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Most initial recurrences of PanNEN occurred in the liver, whereas those of DuNEN appeared in lymph nodes, suggesting that proper diagnosis of the primary site and appropriate imaging methods for surveillance after resection are necessary.