Search

Background: The correct histopathological diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is crucial for treatment selection and prognostication. It is also very challenging due to limited experience in nonexpert centers. Revision of pathology is standard of care for most patients who are referred to NEN expert centers. Objectives: To describe the clinical impact of histopathological revision for GEP-NEN patients referred to an expert center. Methods: Retrospective multicenter analysis of all GEP-NENs receiving a histopathological revision in 6 European NEN expert centers (January 2016 to December 2016) to evaluate the impact on patient management. Results: 175 patients were included and 14.7% referred for a second opinion. Histological samples were 69.1% biopsies, 23.4% surgical specimens, and 7.5% endoscopic resections. Histopathological changes due to revision included first assessment of Ki67 in 8.6% of cases, change in grading in 11.4% (3.4% G1 to G2; 5.7% G2 to G1; 0.6% G2 to G3; 1.7% G3 to G2), definition of tumor invasion in 10.8%, additional immunohistochemical staining in 2.3%, diagnosis of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma in 3.4%, exclusion of NEN in 3.4%, first diagnosis of NEN in 2.3%, and tumor differentiation for G3 in 1.7%. The revision had a clinical impact in 36.0% of patients, leading to a new therapeutic indication in 26.3%. The indication to then perform a new imaging test occurred in 21.1% and recommendation to follow-up with no further treatment in 6.3%. Conclusions: Histopathological revision in expert centers for NENs can change the diagnosis, with a significant clinical impact in about one third of patients.

Background: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) can affect the quality of life of patients with gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Peritoneal disease control by medical therapies in these patients has been poorly investigated Objectives: To describe, in a consecutive series of GEP-NENs, the clinical impact of PC and to report the effectiveness of available treatments in PC control. Methods: A retrospective, monocenter analysis was performed of 135 GEP-NENs (1993–2016) with at least a 12-month follow-up. Peritoneal disease progression was defined as detection of a significant increase in size or appearance of new implants by imaging. Results: A total of 62.9% of cases had diffuse PC (involving at least 2 abdominal quadrants). According to WHO 2017 classification, cases were 42.3% neuroendocrine tumors NET-G1, 45.5% NET-G2, 6.5% NET-G3, 4.9% neuroendocrine carcinomas NEC-G3, and 0.8% mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasms. Bowel obstruction occurred in 30 (22.2%) patients mainly depending on size of peritoneal implants (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02–1.20; p = 0.01). Patients with diffuse PC treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) showed peritoneal progression in 37.5% of cases, and bowel obstruction or ascites in 28.1%. Better peritoneal disease control was observed in cases receiving somatostatin analogs at first-line therapy, probably due to a less aggressive disease behavior for these patients. Conclusions: Bowel obstruction is not uncommon in GEP-NENs with PC. PRRT should be adopted with caution in GEP-NENs with diffuse PC, but larger series are needed to confirm these data.