Clinical features and outcomes analysis of Gallbladder neuroendocrine carcinoma

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant therapy in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) and provide evidence-based suggestions for clinical treatment.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for articles published that analyzed the effectiveness and safety of GEP-NEN-targeted neoadjuvant therapy before March 2023. A confidence interval (CI) of 95%, a subgroup analysis, heterogeneity, and effect size (ES) were analyzed, and a meta-analysis of the literature was performed using the Stata BE17 software.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients from 13 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The primary variables comprised the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), surgical resection rate, and R0 resection rate with ES values of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.25-0.60), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.84), and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.54-0.67), respectively. The secondary variables were the incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), Grade 3 or higher TRAEs, and surgical complications with ES values of 0.29 (95% CI: -0.03-0.21), 0.13 (95% CI: -0.07-0.33), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.44), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant therapy is an effective and safe treatment method for GEP-NENs. However, further studies are required to determine the optimal regimen for this therapy in these tumors.

Comparative prognosis and risk assessment in gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms versus adenocarcinomas

Background

Gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms (GB-NENs) are a rare malignant disease, with most cases diagnosed at advanced stages, often resulting in poor prognosis. However, studies regarding the prognosis of this condition and its comparison with gallbladder adenocarcinomas (GB-ADCs) have yet to yield convincing conclusions.

Methods

We extracted cases of GB-NENs and GB-ADCs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database in the United States. Firstly, we corrected differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups using propensity score matching (PSM). Subsequently, we visualized and compared the survival outcomes of the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Next, we employed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and Cox regression to identify prognostic factors for GB-NENs and constructed two nomograms for predicting prognosis. These nomograms were validated with an internal validation dataset from the SEER database and an external validation dataset from a hospital. Finally, we categorized patients into high-risk and low-risk groups based on their overall survival (OS) scores.

Results

A total of 7,105 patients were enrolled in the study, comprising 287 GB-NENs patients and, 6,818 GB-ADCs patients. There were substantial differences in clinical characteristics between patients, and GB-NENs exhibited a significantly better prognosis. Even after balancing these differences using PSM, the superior prognosis of GB-NENs remained evident. Independent prognostic factors selected through LASSO and Cox regression were age, histology type, first primary malignancy, tumor size, and surgery. Two nomograms for prognosis were developed based on these factors, and their performance was verified from three perspectives: discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability using training, internal validation, and external validation datasets, all of which exhibited excellent validation results. Using a cutoff value of 166.5 for the OS nomogram score, patient mortality risk can be identified effectively.

Conclusion

Patients with GB-NENs have a better overall prognosis compared to those with GB-ADCs. Nomograms for GB-NENs prognosis have been effectively established and validated, making them a valuable tool for assessing the risk of mortality in clinical practice.