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

Clinical Outcome of Patients with Gastric, Duodenal, or Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors after Incomplete Endoscopic Resection

Objectives: Our aim was to investigate the clinical outcome of patients with well-differentiated gastric, duodenal, and rectal neuroendocrine tumors after treatment with incomplete endoscopic resection due to the finding of microscopic positive resection margins (R1). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with type 1 gastric, non-ampullary non-functioning duodenal, or rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms with positive R1 margins after endoscopic resection. The rate of tumor recurrence and progression-free survival were considered to be the study's main endpoints. Statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc® v.17 software and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. A Cox proportional-hazard regression was performed to identify risk factors for disease recurrence/progression. Results: After evaluating 110 patients, a total of 58 patients were included in the final analysis (15 gastric NENs, 12 duodenal NENs, and 31 rectal NENs). After evidence of endoscopic R1 resection had been gathered, 26 patients (44.8%) underwent an endoscopic/surgical extension of the previous resection. Tumor progression (all local recurrences) occurred in five out of fifty-eight patients (8.6%) with a median PFS of 36 months. There were no tumor-related deaths. G2 grading and the gastric primary tumor site were the only features significantly associated with the risk of recurrence of the disease (HR: 11.97 [95% CI: 1.22-116.99], HR: 12.54 [95% CI: 1.28-122.24], respectively). Conclusions: Tumor progression rarely occurs in patients with microscopic positive margin excision (R1) after endoscopic resection and does not seem to affect patients' clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic management of gastric, duodenal and rectal NETs: Position paper from the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors (Itanet), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED)

The present paper reflects the position of the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors (Itanet), the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), and the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) regarding the management of patients affected by gastric, duodenal, and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) amenable to endoscopic treatment. The key questions discussed in this paper are summarized in Table 1. Data were extracted from the MEDLINE database through searches; expert opinions and recommendations are provided in accordance with the available scientific evidence and the authors' expertise. Recommendations are presented alongside a level of evidence and grade of recommendation based on the GRADE system. This paper specifically focuses on subgroups of NENs considered suitable for endoscopic management according to current international guidelines: i. well-differentiated gastric neuroendocrine tumors (gNET) type 1 < 2 cm and selected cases of type 3; ii. well-differentiated duodenal, non-functioning, non-ampullary NET with size < 2 cm; and well-differentiated rectal NET with size < 2 cm.

Optimal surgical approach for digestive neuroendocrine neoplasia primaries: Oncological benefits versus short and long-term complications

The rising incidence and the accumulating prevalence of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) in the population makes this a common, prevalent and a clinically relevant disease group. Surgical resection represents the only potentially curative treatment for digestive NENs. Thus, resection should in principle be considered for all patients with NEN, although taking the patients age, relevant comorbidity, and performance status into account for operability. Patients with insulinomas, NEN of the appendix and rectal NENs are usually cured by surgery alone. However, less than a third of patients are amendable to curative surgery alone at time of diagnosis. Furthermore, recurrence is common and may occur years after primary surgery, hence the long follow-up time recommended in most NENs (>10 years). As many patients with NENs present with locoregional or metastatic disease, there is considerable debate regarding the role of debulking surgery in these settings. However, good long-term survival can be achieved in a considerable proportion of patients, with 50-70% alive up to 10 years after surgery. Location and grade are the main determinants of long-term survival. Here we present considerations to surgery for primary neuroendocrine tumors in the digestive tract.

European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for gastroduodenal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) G1-G3

The aim of the present guidance paper was to update the previous ENETS guidelines on well-differentiated gastric and duodenal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), providing practical guidance for specialists in the diagnosis and management of gastroduodenal NETs. Type II gastric NETs, neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and functioning duodenal NETs are not covered, since they will be discussed in other ENETS guidance papers.

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.

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.

Ampullary Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Identification of Prognostic Factors in a Multicentric Series of 119 Cases

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the major and minor ampulla are rare diseases with clinico-pathologic features distinct from non-ampullary-duodenal NENs. However, they have been often combined and the knowledge on prognostic factors specific to ampullary NENs (Amp-NENs) is limited. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with metastatic potential and patient prognosis in Amp-NENs. We clinically and histologically investigated an international series of 119 Amp-NENs, comprising 93 ampullary neuroendocrine tumors (Amp-NETs) and 26 neuroendocrine carcinomas (Amp-NECs). Somatostatin-producing tubulo-acinar NET represented the predominant Amp-NET histologic subtype (58 cases, 62%, 12 associated with type 1 neurofibromatosis). Compared to Amp-NETs, Amp-NECs arose in significantly older patients and showed a larger tumor size, a more frequent small vessel invasion, a deeper level of invasion and a higher rate of distant metastasis, and, importantly, a tremendously worse disease-specific patient survival. In Amp-NETs, the WHO grade proved to be a strong predictor of disease-specific survival (hazard ratio: 12.61, p < 0.001 for G2 vs G1), as well as patient age at diagnosis > 60 years, small vessel invasion, pancreatic invasion, and distant metastasis at diagnosis. Although nodal metastatic disease was not associated with survival by itself, patients with > 3 metastatic lymph nodes showed a worse outcome in comparison with the remaining Amp-NET cases with lymphadenectomy. Tumor epicenter in the major ampulla, small vessel invasion, and tumor size > 16 mm were independent predictors of nodal metastases in Amp-NETs. In conclusion, we identified prognostic factors, which may eventually help guide treatment decisions in Amp-NENs.

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.

Duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms with unexpectedly aggressive behaviour: Challenging the "watch and wait" approach

The incidence of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms has risen over the past decades as a result of the wide availability of endoscopy and associated expertise. Although it is considered that tumour size greater than 10 mm, higher tumour grade and/or location in relation to the ampulla of Vater represent the main risk factors for local or distant metastases, we describe two cases of well differentiated grade 1 and grade 2 neuroendocrine tumours, which measured < 10 mm at the time of diagnosis but had an aggressive course during follow-up. Furthermore, we also summarise the available therapeutic strategies for the management of small, low grade, non-functioning, non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms.