Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of 77 cases with type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumours

Modern Management of Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

OPINION STATEMENT

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (G-NENs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors that broadly fall into two groups. The first group, driven by oversecretion of gastrin, are generally multifocal, small, and behave indolently with a low (but non-zero) risk of progression and metastatic spread. They are conventionally categorized into type 1, with endogenous gastric-based overproduction of gastrin, and type 2 G-NEN, with overproduction of gastrin from an extra-gastric gastrin-secreting tumor. The second group, termed type 3 G-NEN, occur spontaneously and are potentially more aggressive, having a clinical course analogous to other neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Type 1 G-NEN can be managed with endoscopic surveillance and resection of visible lesions with great success, reserving surgery for the rare high-risk lesion, whereas surgical resection of the causative gastrin-secreting tumor in type 2 G-NEN is usually curative. Type 3 G-NEN is usually managed with formal surgical resection but there is growing evidence that limited surgery or even endoscopic resection in appropriately selected patients with low risk is both safe and effective. A novel subtype of G-NEN, associated with long-term proton pump inhibitor usage, is increasing in incidence. The pathophysiology seems to parallel type 1 G-NEN. In the setting of metastatic disease, which can occur in any subtype but is most common by far in type 3 G-NEN, the lack of trial data unique to G-NEN results in extrapolation of strategies and agents for treatment of non-gastric neuroendocrine disease. The rapid pace of development in this area is likely to benefit the metastatic G-NEN patient as well. As treatment is predicate on type of G-NEN, establishing the etiology of the lesion is crucial but growing knowledge of G-NEN pathophysiology and close collaboration between pathologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, and oncologists have enabled a growing trend towards de-escalation and less-invasive treatment paradigms.

Gastric neuroendocrine tumors: 20-Year experience in a reference center

Few studies have been published on the long-term outcomes of patients with gastric neuroendocrine tumors (gNETs). We analyzed their management over a two-decade period, focusing on endoscopic and clinical outcomes. Clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, surgical, and histopathological data from Types 1 and 3 gNETs histologically diagnosed between March 2000 and December 2021 at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO, Milan) were retrospectively collected. Sixty-nine patients were included (60 Type 1, 9 Type 3): 53 (77%) were treated endoscopically, 6 (9%) surgically, and 10 (14%) did not receive any treatment. Overall, 293 lesions were removed endoscopically: 74% by forceps, 20% by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and 5% by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). No differences were observed between EMR and ESD in terms of complete resection rate (p value = .50) and complications rate (p value = .084). The median follow-up period was 5.8 years (range: 0.3-20.5), during which no gNET-related deaths were observed. Metachronous gNETs developed in 60% of patients with Type 1 gNET. Six patients with lymph node metastases (LNM) were younger (p value = .006) and had larger lesions (p value <.001) than patients without LNM. Most Type 1 gNETs were successfully excised using forceps, with EMR and ESD being equally effective. The presence of incomplete resection was not associated with a worse prognosis, which remains excellent in this highly recurrent disease. Younger age and a size ≥10 mm were associated with an increased risk of LNM. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Project code UID 2854.

Predictors of Outcomes in Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Retrospective Cohort

Introduction/Aim

Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) frequently have an indolent clinical course, despite their metastatic potential. The aim of the study was to identify prognostic factors associated with overall survival and risk of metastases and to evaluate the impact of serial measurements of chromogranin A (CgA).

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with GNET diagnosed between 2010 and 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

Results

We included 132 patients with GNET (type I, 113 patients; type II, 1 patient; type III, 14 patients; type IV, 2 patients; not classifiable, 2 patients), with 61% being female and a mean age at diagnosis of 66 years. During the follow-up period (median 66 months), 3 (2.3%) patients died due to metastatic disease (1 patient with type III and 2 patients with type IV). Male gender (p = 0.030), type III/IV (p < 0.001), Ki-67 index >20% (p < 0.001), grade 2/3 (p < 0.001), invasion beyond the submucosa (p < 0.001), and presence of metastases (p < 0.001) were identified as risk factors for mortality in the univariate analysis. Metastasis developed in 7 patients (5.3%). Multivariable analysis revealed that Ki-67 >20% (p = 0.016) was an independent risk factor for metastasis. Overall, CgA showed a sensitivity of 20% for detection of recurrence and a specificity of 79% (sensitivity of 8% and specificity of 71% in type I GNETs).

Conclusion

Identification of risk factors for the presence of metastases and for mortality in these groups of patients can help in individualizing the therapeutic strategy. CgA seems to be a weak marker for monitoring patients with GNET.

Type 3 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: the rising promise of conservative endoscopic management

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) are rare tumors arising from the gastric enterochromaffin-like cells. Recent data suggests an increased detection rate, attributed to more frequent esophagogastroduodenoscopies. While type 3 g-NENs were historically deemed aggressive, emerging research indicates potential for conservative management, especially endoscopic resection, in well-differentiated, small tumors. European guidelines now advocate for endoscopic intervention in selected cases, but North American guidelines remain more conservative. Key factors influencing outcomes are tumor size, grading, and depth of gastric wall infiltration. Endoscopic resection has shown promise for tumors confined to submucosal layers without lymphovascular invasion. Given the complexities, a multidisciplinary team approach is essential for management decisions. Current insights are largely based on retrospective studies, underscoring the need for prospective research to optimize endoscopic approaches.

Advances in Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms refer to a group of diseases that are relatively rare. They can be classified into three subtypes based on their clinical and histopathological features, and there are significant differences in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis among the different subtypes. The incidence of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms has been increasing globally in recent years with the localized disease being particularly evident. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is of irreplaceable importance for the diagnosis and management of g-NENs. Endoscopy with biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of g-NENs. Ultrasound endoscopy can assess the depth of tumor invasion and the presence of lymphatic metastases, which is important for the development of treatment strategies. Meanwhile, for some small and low-risk lesions, endoscopic surveillance or endoscopic resection has satisfactory therapeutic results and prognosis. This means that even though the incidence has increased, advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed more patients to adopt a relatively conservative treatment strategy. However, the criteria for patients suitable for endoscopic surveillance or endoscopic resection remain controversial.

Clinicopathological and genetic characteristics of gastric neuroendocrine tumour (NET) G3 and comparisons with neuroendocrine carcinoma and NET G2

AIMS

To characterise the clinicopathological and genetic characteristics of gastric neuroendocrine tumour G3 (gNET G3) and to compare them with those of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (gNEC) and gNET G2.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 115 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) were included, of which gNET G3 was different from gNET G1/G2 in terms of tumour location (P = 0.029), number (P = 0.003), size (P = 0.010), the Ki67 index (P < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (P < 0.001) and TNM stage (P = 0.011), and different from gNEC/gastric mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (gMiNEN) in terms of tumour size (P = 0.010) and the Ki67 index (P = 0.001). High-resolution copy number (CN) profiling and validation experiments showed CN gains and high expression of DLL3 in gNET G3. Hierarchical clustering analysis based on CN characteristics showed that gNET G3 was separated from gNEC but mixed with gNET G2. In gene set enrichment analysis, eight pathways were significantly enriched in gNEC when comparing gNET G3 and gNEC (P < 0.05), while no pathways were enriched when comparing gNET G3 and gNET G2. Whole-exome sequencing and validation experiments showed nonsense mutation of TP53 in one gNET G3, with wild-type staining for p53. In gNEC, TP53 mutations were detected in four of eight cases, and abnormal expression of p53 was detected in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Gastric NET G3 is a distinct entity with unique genetic characteristics, which are different from those of gNEC than gNET G2. Our results provide insight into some molecular alterations that may contribute to the development and progression of gNET G3 and serve as potential therapeutic targets.

Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs

PURPOSE

to collect data from real-life experiences of the management of type 3 g-NETs and identify possible prognostic factors that may impact the decision-making process.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature on type 3 g-NET management using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. We included cohort studies, case series, and case reports written in the English language.

RESULTS

We selected 31 out of 556 articles from between 2001 and 2022. In 2 out of the 31 studies, a 10 mm and 20 mm cut-off size were respectively associated with a higher risk of gastric wall infiltration and/or lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis. The selected studies reported a higher risk of lymph node or distant metastasis at diagnosis in the case of muscularis propria infiltration or beyond, irrespective of the dimensions or grading. From these findings, size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration seem to be the most relevant factors in management staff making choices and prognoses of type 3 g-NET patients. We produced a hypothetical flowchart for a standardized approach to these rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

Further prospective analyses are needed to validate the prognostic impact of the use of size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration as prognostic factors in the management of type 3 g-NETs.

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.

Endoscopic techniques for gastric neuroendocrine tumors: An update

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) are a rare type of gastric neoplasm, even if their frequency is increasing according to the latest epidemiologic revisions of the main registries worldwide. They are divided into three main subtypes, with different pathogeneses, biological behaviors, and clinical characteristics. GNEN heterogeneity poses challenges, therefore these neoplasms require different management strategies. Update the knowledge on the endoscopic treatment options to manage g-NENs. This manuscript is a narrative review of the literature. In recent years, many advances have been made not only in the knowledge of both the pathogenesis and the molecular profiling of gNENs but also in the endoscopic expertise towards innovative treatment options, which proved to be less aggressive without losing the capability of being radical. The endoscopic approach is increasingly applied in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) luminal neoplasms, and this is true not only for adenocarcinomas but also for gNENs. In particular, different techniques have been described for the endoscopic removal of suspected lesions, ranging from classical polypectomy (cold or hot snare) to endoscopic mucosal resection (both with “en bloc” or piecemeal technique), endoscopic submucosal dissection, and endoscopic full-thickness resection. GNENs comprise different subtypes of neoplasms with distinct management and prognosis. New endoscopic techniques offer a wide variety of approaches for GI localized neoplasms, which demonstrated to be appropriate and effective also in the case of gNENs. Correct evaluation of size, site, morphology, and clinical context allows the choice of tailored therapy in order to guarantee a definitive treatment.

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.