Search

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the presence of risk factors for a type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia in a large cohort of patients with chronic atrophic gastritis. The study design consisted of an Italian multicentre, retrospective analysis. The study included all consecutive patients with chronic atrophic gastritis with or without type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasias followed at the participating centres. Two hundred and twenty-nine patients with chronic atrophic gastritis were enroled at the participating centres. A total of 207 patients (154 female, 53 males, median age: 56.0 years) were included in the final analysis. One hundred and twenty-six patients had chronic atrophic gastritis without a gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia and 81 had a chronic atrophic gastritis with type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia. The median Chromogranin A level, evaluated in 141 patients, was 52.0 U/L. At upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, atrophy of the gastric mucosa was mild/moderate in 137 patients and severe in 68. Intestinal metaplasia of the corpus was present in 168 patients. At histological examination, 81 patients had a gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia (42 patients had a NET G1 and 33 a NET G2). The median Ki67 index was 2.0 %. At univariate and multivariate analysis, the risk factors for a gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia were: male gender, chromogranin A greater than 61 U/L, presence of intestinal metaplasia and age equal to or greater than 59 years. Chromogranin A greater than 61 U/L, the presence of intestinal metaplasia and male gender were independent risk factors for a type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia in patients with chronic atrophic gastritis.

To provide data regarding clinical presentation, pathological features, management, and response to different treatments of patients with type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors in stages 0-2A. The study design consist of an Italian multicentre, retrospective analysis of patients with type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors managed with different therapeutic approaches: surgery, endoscopic surveillance, endoscopic resection, or somatostatin analog therapy. Among the 97 patients included, 3 underwent surgery, 45 (46.4%) radical endoscopic resection of the neoplastic lesions, 13 (13.4%) follow-up with upper endoscopy, and 36 (37.1%) somatostatin analog therapy. At the end of the follow-up, all patients were alive and there was no evidence of metastatic disease. Somatostatin analog therapy resulted in a complete response in 76.0% of the patients and stable disease in 24.0%. A prolonged period of therapy, the use of a full dose of somatostatin analogs and higher gastrin levels at diagnosis were related to a complete response to the therapy. The recurrence rate was 26.3% in patients treated with somatostatin analog therapy and 26.2% in patients treated with endoscopic resection, without a statistically significant difference in terms of disease-free survival. Regarding recurrence of the disease, no statistical difference was found according to type of therapy, number of neoplastic lesions, and 2010 WHO classification. The only risk factor for tumor recurrence was a short period of medical treatment. In conclusion, our study suggested that endoscopic surveillance, endoscopic resection and somatostatin analog therapy represent valid options in the management of patients with type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors in stages 0-2A.