| 1. |
- Janson, Eva Tiensuu, et al.
(författare)
-
Nordic guidelines 2014 for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 53:10, s. 1284-1297
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe diagnostic work-up and treatment of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has undergone major recent advances and new methods are currently introduced into the clinic. An update of the WHO classification has resulted in a new nomenclature dividing NENs into neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) including G1 (Ki67 index ≤ 2%) and G2 (Ki67 index 3-20%) tumours and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) with Ki67 index > 20%, G3. Aim. These Nordic guidelines summarise the Nordic Neuroendocrine Tumour Group's current view on how to diagnose and treat NEN-patients and are meant to be useful in the daily practice for clinicians handling these patients.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dam, Gitte, et al.
(författare)
-
Nordic 2023 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 62:5, s. 431-437
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Lung neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) are a heterogeneous population of neoplasms with different pathology, clinical behavior, and prognosis compared to the more common lung cancers. The diagnostic work-up and treatment of patients with lung- NEN has undergone major recent advances and new methods are currently being introduced into the clinic. These Nordic guidelines summarize and update the Nordic Neuroendocrine Tumor Group's current view on how to diagnose and treat lung NEN-patients and are meant to be useful in the daily practice for clinicians handling these patients. This review reflects our view of the current state of the art of diagnosis and treatment of patients with lung-NEN. Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is not included in these guidelines.
|
|
| 3. |
- Janson, Eva Tiensuu, et al.
(författare)
-
Nordic Guidelines 2010 for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 49:6, s. 740-756
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The diagnostic work-up and treatment of patients with neuroendocrine tumours has undergone a major change during the last decade. New diagnostic possibilities and treatment options have been developed. These Nordic guidelines, written by a group with a major interest in the subject, summarises our current view on how to diagnose and treat these patients. The guidelines are meant to be useful in the daily practice for clinicians handling patients with neuroendocrine tumours.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nesti, Cedric, et al.
(författare)
-
Hemicolectomy versus appendectomy for patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours 1-2 cm in size : a retrospective, Europe-wide, pooled cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 24:2, s. 187-194
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundAwareness of the potential global overtreatment of patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of 1–2 cm in size by performing oncological resections is increasing, but the rarity of this tumour has impeded clear recommendations to date. We aimed to assess the malignant potential of appendiceal NETs of 1–2 cm in size in patients with or without right-sided hemicolectomy.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we pooled data from 40 hospitals in 15 European countries for patients of any age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status with a histopathologically confirmed appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size who had a complete resection of the primary tumour between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2010. Patients either had an appendectomy only or an appendectomy with oncological right-sided hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection. Predefined primary outcomes were the frequency of distant metastases and tumour-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of regional lymph node metastases, the association between regional lymph node metastases and histopathological risk factors, and overall survival with or without right-sided hemicolectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the relative all-cause mortality hazard associated with right-sided hemicolectomy compared with appendectomy alone. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03852693.Findings282 patients with suspected appendiceal tumours were identified, of whom 278 with an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size were included. 163 (59%) had an appendectomy and 115 (41%) had a right-sided hemicolectomy, 110 (40%) were men, 168 (60%) were women, and mean age at initial surgery was 36·0 years (SD 18·2). Median follow-up was 13·0 years (IQR 11·0–15·6). After centralised histopathological review, appendiceal NETs were classified as a possible or probable primary tumour in two (1%) of 278 patients with distant peritoneal metastases and in two (1%) 278 patients with distant metastases in the liver. All metastases were diagnosed synchronously with no tumour-related deaths during follow-up. Regional lymph node metastases were found in 22 (20%) of 112 patients with right-sided hemicolectomy with available data. On the basis of histopathological risk factors, we estimated that 12·8% (95% CI 6·5 –21·1) of patients undergoing appendectomy probably had residual regional lymph node metastases. Overall survival was similar between patients with appendectomy and right-sided hemicolectomy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·36–2·17]; p=0·71).InterpretationThis study provides evidence that right-sided hemicolectomy is not indicated after complete resection of an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size by appendectomy, that regional lymph node metastases of appendiceal NETs are clinically irrelevant, and that an additional postoperative exclusion of metastases and histopathological evaluation of risk factors is not supported by the presented results. These findings should inform consensus best practice guidelines for this patient cohort.
|
|
