Perforation in appendiceal well-differentiated carcinoid and goblet cell tumors: impact on prognosis? A systematic review

Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoma: Role of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Goblet cell carcinoma (GCC) encompasses a separate entity in appendiceal neoplasms with mixed glandular and neuro-endocrine pathological features. GCC mostly presents as an acute appendicitis duo to luminal obstruction or as an incidental finding on the surgical appendectomy specimen. In case of tumour perforation or presence of other risk factors, guidelines suggest additional treatment with a completing right hemicolectomy or cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). We report the case of a 77-year-old male with symptoms of appendicitis for which an appendectomy was performed. The appendix was ruptured during the procedure. There was an incidental finding of GCC on the pathological specimen. Because of possible tumour soiling, the patient received a prophylactic CRS-HIPEC. A literature review was performed to investigate the potential role for CRS-HIPEC as a curative treatment in patients with GCC. GCC of the appendix is an aggressive type of tumour with a high risk of peritoneal and systemic dissemination. CRS and HIPEC is a treatment option: both in a prophylactic setting and in patients with established peritoneal metastases.

Perforated Carcinoid Tumor of the Appendix: Need for Guidelines for Management With Respect to Prognostic Factors

Carcinoid tumors, one of the most common malignant lesions involving the appendix, are typically found incidentally during routine appendectomies. While up to 20% of acute appendicitis cases present with perforation, the incidence of perforation among patients with undiagnosed carcinoid tumors of the appendix is unknown. In addition, there is no consensus on the management of carcinoid tumors in the perforated appendix or its impact on prognosis. We present a case of a 42-year-old woman presented with perforated appendicitis. Final pathology demonstrated the presence of a 1.1 cm, well-differentiated grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor at the tip of the appendix extending into the subserosa, without evidence for lymphovascular invasion. Given the depth of tumor invasion and the relatively young age of the patient, the decision was made to perform an interval completion right hemicolectomy for lymph node sampling. Only a few cases have been reported in the available literature, and it remains unclear whether appendiceal perforation represents an independent negative prognostic factor for patient survival. Additional data from cohort studies are needed to determine the true incidence, prognosis, and optimal management of newly diagnosed carcinoid tumors in the perforated appendix. Furthermore, clear consensus guidelines are needed to identify the subgroup of patients who would benefit from interval or primary right hemicolectomy.

Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Appendix: A Systematic Review and Incidence and Survival of 1,225 Cases From an English Cancer Registry

Background

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA) of the appendix is a rare and aggressive tumour with varying nomenclature and classification systems. This has led to heterogeneity in published data, and there is a lack of consensus on incidence, survival, and management.

Methods

We provide an overview of GCA with a comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology and a retrospective analysis of all cases recorded in the English National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database between 1995 and 2018. The Kaplan–Meier estimator was used to calculate overall survival, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify prognostic factors.

Results

The systematic review demonstrated an incidence of 0.05–0.3 per 100,000 per year among North American registry studies. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate was 95.5%, 85.9%–87.6%, and 76.0%–80.6%, respectively. Age, stage, and grade were identified as prognostic factors for survival. Our analysis included 1,225 cases. Age-standardised incidence was 0.0335 per year in 1995 and gradually rose to 0.158 per year in 2018. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate was 90.0% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 85.4–94.0], 76.0% (95% CI: 73.8–80.9), and 68.6% (95% CI: 65.9–72.2), respectively. On univariate Cox regression analyses, female sex, stage, and grade were associated with worse overall survival. On multivariate analysis, only stage remained a statistically significant prognostic factor.

Conclusions

GCA of the appendix is rare, but incidence is increasing. We report a lower incidence and survival than North American registry studies. Higher stage was associated with decreased survival. Further prospective studies are required to establish optimal management.

An incidental finding of ANET in a patient with perforated appendix: A case report

Introduction and importance

Appendiceal neuroendocrine tumors (ANETs) are incidentally found in 0.2–0.7% of appendectomies for suspected appendicitis.

Case presentation

A 29-year-old female presented with pain in the right lower quadrant of her abdomen for the past 48 h. On emergency appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis, a perforated appendix was found. Histopathological examination showed grade 1 (low) ANET.

Clinical discussion

Appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms (ANENs) are commonly found at the tip of the appendix and are treated with appendectomy alone. For few ANENs located at the base, or small tumors (≤2 cm) infiltrating the submucosa, the muscularis, the subserosa layer or the mesoappendix, right hemicolectomy is recommended. However, no guidelines have been established concerning patients with appendiceal perforation in case of ANENs.

Conclusion

Although rare, ANETs should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Since, ANETs are rarely diagnosed preoperatively, subsequent patient evaluation after appendectomy is crucial for management of the patient.

•

Appendiceal Neuroendocrine tumor (ANET) are incidentally found in 0.2–0.7% of appendectomies for suspected appendicitis.

•

ANETs are commonly found at the tip of the appendix and are treated with appendectomy alone.

•

Although rare, ANETs should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

•

Since, ANETs are rarely diagnosed preoperatively, subsequent patient evaluation after appendectomy is crucial.

•

The best management of ANETs in case of perforated appendicitis remains unclear.

Acute appendicitis–advances and controversies

Being one of the most common causes of the acute abdomen, acute appendicitis (AA) forms the bread and butter of any general surgeon’s practice. With the recent advancements in AA’s management, much controversy in diagnostic algorithms, possible differential diagnoses, and weighing the management options has been generated, with no absolute consensus in the literature. Since Alvarado described his eponymous clinical scoring system in 1986 to stratify AA risk, there has been a burgeoning of additional scores for guiding downstream management and mortality assessment. Furthermore, advancing literature on the role of antibiotics, variations in appendicectomy, and its adjuncts have expanded the surgeon’s repertoire of management options. Owing to the varied presentation, diagnostic tools, and management of AA have also been proposed in special groups such as pregnant patients, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. This article seeks to raise the critical debates about what is currently known about the above aspects of AA and explore the latest controversies in the field. Considering the ever-evolving coronavirus disease 2019 situation worldwide, we also discuss the pandemic’s repercussions on patients and how surgeons’ practices have evolved in the context of AA.

Appendicular neoplasms and consequences in patients undergoing surgery for suspected acute appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

In patients treated with an appendectomy for acute appendicitis, the specimen is generally sent for histological evaluation. In an era of increasing non-operative treatment for acute appendicitis, it is important to know the incidence, the diagnostic accuracy, and treatment consequences of appendicular neoplasms that are found in acute appendicitis. We hypothesize that pre- and intra-operative parameters might predict an appendicular neoplasm.

METHODS

Data was used from our previous prospective observational cohort study. All patients undergoing surgery for suspected acute appendicitis were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of appendicular neoplasms in patients operated for acute appendicitis. Secondary outcomes were pre-operative diagnostics and imaging outcomes, intra-operative surgical judgment, and postoperative management and outcome. Possible predictors of an appendicular neoplasm were identified and used in multivariable logistic regression. Patients with an appendicular neoplasm were followed for 3 years after initial appendectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 1975 patients underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis and in 98.3% (1941/1975) the appendix was removed. In 1.5% (30/1941) of these patients, an appendicular neoplasm was found. Among the malignant neoplasms, the majority were grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors (NET) in 65% (13/20). On pre-operative imaging, there was no suspicion of malignancy. In three cases, there was an intra-operative suspicion of malignancy. Multivariable analysis showed only age as an independent predictor for appendicular neoplasms. No recurrent or new malignancy was found during follow-up.

DISCUSSION

The incidence of appendicular neoplasm in patients undergoing an acute appendectomy is very low and clinical risk factors could not be identified.

ΔNp73 status in peritoneal and ovarian dissemination of appendicular adenocarcinoids (goblet cells)

INTRODUCTION

Goblet cell carcinoma (GCC) is an appendicular neoplasia representing less than 5% of all appendicular tumors, found in 0.3-0.9% of the appendectomies, 35-58% of all appendicular neoplasms, and less than 14% of malign appendix tumors. The most frequent clinical presentation is abdominal pain associated with a picture of acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present 3 clinical cases of appendix GCC, 2 subjected to cytoreductory surgery plus intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy and a third, who is currently receiving neoadjuvant treatment with a good response to chemotherapy and who will be offered the same treatment as the first two patients. Given the unpredictable behavior of these tumors, the use of molecular markers could help us to predict their behavior and prognosis. In this context, the TP73 gene would make an interesting putative marker. ∆Np73 has been described as overexpressed in a great variety of tumor types including colon cancer and this up-regulation is associated with a poor prognosis. To evidence its role in this malignancy, we evaluate here the status of ∆Np73 in the primary tumor and normal counterpart tissues, in the metastatic implants and in healthy areas of the peritoneum from the appendicular GCC patients. In addition, we checked the expression levels of this p73 variant in the tumor and normal tissue of 26 patients with colon cancer.

RESULTS

Remarkably, 2 patients showed significant ∆Np73 down-regulation in both the primary tumor and the implants. Case 1 presented a fourfold decrease of levels in the primary tumor and 20-fold decrease in the implants. Case 2 showed a seven- and fourfold down-regulation in the primary tumor and implants, respectively. However, Case 3 showed an up-regulation of 53- and threefold in the primary tumor and implants, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Goblet cell carcinoma of the appendix is very rate. It tends to seed throughout the peritoneum, making aggressive surgical cytoreduction and chemotherapy viable treatment options. Investigation into the molecular basis of these tumors may improve the diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic decisions regarding these patients. ∆Np73 seems a good candidate for further analysis in longer series.

Effects of Prostaglandin E1 on Patients Undergoing Major Gastrointestinal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effects of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) in patients who underwent surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) trauma, perforation, or obstruction.

BACKGROUND

PGE1 is thought to enhance intestinal blood supply and reduce GI complications during the postoperative period.

METHODS

The medical records of 889 patients undergoing major GI surgery were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for any baseline differences. Clinical outcomes, including early GI function recovery, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay, were evaluated in all patients. In 278 paired patients, selected nutritional, immunologic, and inflammatory variables were compared based on PGE1 administration.

RESULTS

After propensity score 1:1 matching, the baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. PGE1 was associated with prompt postoperative GI function recovery, including first bowel movement [2.6 ± 0.9 vs 3.1 ± 1.0 days after surgery in patients with and without PGE1 treatment, risk ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001] and first feeding within postoperative day 3 [179 (64.39%) vs 152 (54.68%); risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.90, P = 0.012]. A lower overall postoperative complication rate, including infectious complications [45 (16.2%) vs 68 (24.5%); odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91, P = 0.010] and major complications [23 (8.3%) vs 48 (17.3%); odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, P = 0.001], was noted in patients with PGE1 treatment than in patients without PGE1 treatment. Furthermore, the immunologic and inflammatory variable C-reactive protein on postoperative day 3 was reduced by PGE1 treatment (52.5 ± 36.4 vs 89.6 ± 42.4 mg/L; P = 0.037, t test).

CONCLUSIONS

PGE1 is associated with beneficial clinical effects, such as prompt postoperative GI function recovery and reduced overall postoperative complications after emergency GI surgery, which may be attributed to a reduced inflammatory response.

Perforation of appendiceal adenocarcinoma ex goblet cell carcinoid: a rare case

Goblet cell carcinoid tumor is a rare form of carcinoid tumor of the appendix. It behaves more aggressively than classical carcinoid tumor of the appendix. Thus, special attention must be given to its disease course and treatment. Our case presentation is of a 68-year-old female who presented with abdominal pain. Computed tomography of her abdomen and pelvis showed a perforated appendicitis. She underwent an ileocectomy with pathological report showing a goblet cell carcinoid tumor of the appendix with negative lymph nodes. A subsequent colonoscopy done 5 months later showed no synchronous lesions and a healthy anastomosis. Given the limited amount of data available about goblet cell carcinoid tumors of the appendix, it is important to report all findings in an effort to improve our understanding and treatment approaches of this rare disease.

Histologic and Outcome Study Supports Reclassifying Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoids as Goblet Cell Adenocarcinomas, and Grading and Staging Similarly to Colonic Adenocarcinomas

Goblet cell carcinoid tumors are amphicrine tumors whose biological behavior ranges from indolent to highly aggressive, depending on tumor grade. Current grading systems for these tumors are based on identifying an adenocarcinoma arising in the setting of a goblet cell carcinoid tumor, which distinguishes this tumor from other gastrointestinal tract adenocarcinomas. Because goblet cell tumors are predominantly tumors of mucin secreting cells, we propose that they be classified as goblet cell adenocarcinomas, and graded using a methodology that has parallels in colorectal adenocarcinoma grading. We graded a large series of goblet cell adenocarcinomas by assessing the proportion of the tumor that demonstrates tubular or clustered growth. Histologic grade correlated with overall survival independent of stage, with median overall survival of 204, 86, and 29 months for low-grade, intermediate-grade, and high-grade goblet cell adenocarcinomas, respectively. Tumor stage also correlated with overall survival. We also graded the tumors according to previously proposed grading systems, and found that these systems are valid, in that they segregate patients according to prognosis.

Perforated Goblet Cell Carcinoid Tumors of the Appendix: Navigating the Management Conundrum

Appendix is the most common site of occurrence for a goblet cell carcinoid tumor. A diagnosis of an appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid is made in retrospect the majority of the time. These tumors are best treated with a right hemicolectomy and adjuvant therapies tailored according to the presence or absence of residual disease. Presentation as a perforated appendix is seen in 16% of these tumors. The natural history and the ideal management strategy in such a scenario are not well described. In those with peritoneal spread cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) offers the best disease-free and progression-free survival. Close follow-up with cross-sectional imaging helps in identifying recurrences at the earliest. Multimodality management involving patient participation in every aspect of care accomplishes high-value care in the treatment of these tumors.

Goblet cell carcinoids of the appendix: Tumor biology, mutations and management strategies

Malignant neoplasms of the appendix are rare and represent less than 1% of gastrointestinal cancers. Goblet cell carcinoids (GCC) tumors are a distinctive group of heterogeneous appendiceal neoplasm that exhibit unique clinical and pathologic features. This review focuses on the current diagnostic procedures, pathogenesis, possible signaling mechanisms and treatment options for GCC. Perspectives for future research are discussed. The tumor likely arises from pluripotent intestinal epithelial crypt base stem cells. Previous findings of Notch signaling as a tumor suppressor in Neuroendocrine tumors may have a similar role in this tumor too. Loss of Notch signaling may be the driver mutation with other successive downstream mutations likely favors them into progressing and behavior similar to poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with minimal neuroendocrine differentiation. A multidisciplinary approach is suggested for optimal outcomes. Surgery remains the main treatment modality. Simple appendectomy may be sufficient in early stages while right hemicolectomy is recommended for advanced tumors. Cytoreductive surgery with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy may improve survival in a select few with metastatic peritoneal disease. These tumors have an unpredictable behavior even in early stages and local recurrence and delayed metastases may be seen. Lifelong surveillance is warranted.

Prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with epithelial appendiceal neoplasms

Background Prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a promising approach for preventing peritoneal carcinomatosis in high-risk patients. We report our initial experience with prophylactic HIPEC in a series of patients with appendiceal neoplasms. Methods We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained database to identify patients who underwent HIPEC in the absence of peritoneal disease. Patients with previously documented peritoneal surface disease were excluded. Data regarding clinical, operative and pathological features were analysed. Results Out of 322 HIPEC procedures performed between March 2007and August 2015, we identified 16 patients who underwent surgery with prophylactic intent. Primary diagnoses included high-grade and low-grade appendiceal neoplasms. Most patients presented originally with appendiceal perforation; all patients underwent initial surgery during which the appendix or right colon were resected. Following a median time interval of 2.2 months, a second surgery performed at our institution consisted of completion of omentectomy, partial colectomy and oophorectomy, with administration of prophylactic HIPEC (using mitomycin C). A totally laparoscopic approach was attempted and achieved in 11 patients in whom the median duration of surgery, estimated intraoperative blood loss and length of hospitalisation were 251 min, 100 cm(3) and 4 days, respectively. There were no cases of major perioperative morbidity or mortality. Conclusions Prophylactic HIPEC for appendiceal neoplasms is feasible, safe and may be performed laparoscopically. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to determine whether a survival benefit is associated with this treatment.

Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoids: Management Considerations from a Reference Peritoneal Tumour Service Centre and ENETS Centre of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Appendix goblet cell carcinoids are known to share histological features of adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumours. Due to their low incidence, quality evidence is lacking for the management of these patients.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre retrospective study of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid (GCC; 1996-2014). Patients were divided into curative intent (CI) and palliative intent (PI) cohorts. Our primary end point was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were eligible; 76% were treated with CI [surgery only (36%), cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC; 36%), adjuvant chemotherapy (20%) and a combination of CRS and HIPEC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (9%)], and 23% had advanced-stage disease amenable to palliative treatment (chemotherapy or supportive care) only. Completion right hemicolectomy, performed in 64% of the CI cohort, did not impact on the relapse rate or disease-free survival. FOLFOX chemotherapy was used in both the adjuvant and palliative settings; safety was as expected, and we observed a high rate (60%) of disease control in the palliative cohort. The estimated median OS (all patients), disease-free survival (CI patients) and progression-free survival (PI patients) were 52.1 (95% CI 29.4-90.3), 75.9 (26.6-not reached) and 5.3 (0.6-5.7) months, respectively. Age and stage were independent factors associated with OS in the multivariable analysis. Tang classification showed a trend for impact on OS. No benefit from specific adjuvant approach was identified; however, selection bias for treatment approach was observed.

CONCLUSION

Prospective trials are needed to define optimal approaches in GCC. All GCC patients should be managed by specialized centres due to their esoteric behaviour; we provide management considerations based on our experience and conclusions.