Search

Background: Liver embolisation is one of the treatment options available for patients diagnosed with neuro-endocrine neoplasms (NEN). It is still uncertain whether the benefits of the various types of embolisation treatments truly outweigh the complications in NENs. This systematic review assesses the available data relating to liver embolisation in patients with NENs. Methods: Eligible studies (identified using MEDLINE-PubMed) were those reporting data on NEN patients who had undergone any type of liver embolisation. The primary end points were best radiological response and symptomatic response; secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: Of 598 studies screened, 101 were eligible: 16 were prospective (15.8%). The eligible studies included a total of 5,545 NEN patients, with a median of 39 patients per study (range 5–214). Pooled rate of partial response was 36.6% (38.9% achieved stable disease) and 55.2% of patients had a symptomatic response to therapy when pooled data were analysed. The median PFS and OS were 18.4 months (95% CI 15.5–21.2) and 40.7 months (95% CI 35.2–46.2) respectively. The most common toxicities were found to be abdominal pain (48.8%) and nausea (48.1%). Outcome did not significantly vary depending on the type of embolisation performed. Conclusion: Liver embolisation provides adequate symptom relief for patients with carcinoid syndrome and is also able to reach partial response in a significant proportion of patients and a reasonable PFS. Quality of studies was limited, highlighting the need of further prospective studies to confirm the most suitable form of liver embolisation in NENs.

Background: There is no global consensus on the optimal management of bone metastases (BMs) in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Objectives: To review current management and outcomes of patients with BMs in NENs, in order to identify areas for improvement. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with NENs, except Grade 3 lung NENs (April 2002 to March 2018) was conducted. Baseline characteristics, nature of BMs, treatment received and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0/STATA v12. Results: Of 1,212 patients, 85 (7%) had BMs; median age 58 years. The majority had a gastro-entero-pancreatic primary (49%, n = 42) followed by lung (25%, n = 21), unknown primary (20%, n = 17), and “others” (6%, n = 5). Two-thirds (n = 57) had G1–2 neuroendocrine tumours, and 41% (n = 35) had functional tumours. Overall, 28% (n = 24) presented with synchronous BMs at first NEN diagnosis, and 55% (n = 47) developed BMs at the same time as other distant metastases. For the subpopulation of patients in whom BMs developed metachronously to other distant metastases (45%, n = 38), median time to development of BMs was 14.0 months. BMs were “widespread” in 61% (n = 52). Although only 22% (n = 19) reported symptoms at initial diagnosis of BMs, most (78%) developed symptoms at some time during the follow-up period (pain/hypercalcaemia 64%, skeletal-related events 20%). BMs were mainly managed with analgesia (44%, n = 37). Radiotherapy and bisphosphonates were used in 34% (n = 29) and 22% (n = 19) respectively. Surgery was rarely performed (2%, n = 2). Median OS from identification of BMs was 31.0, and 18.9 months from development of BMs-related symptoms. Conclusions: In this cohort study, most patients with BMs developed symptoms. The utility of radiotherapy and/or bisphosphonates should be prospectively and systematically explored further for its potential impact on patients’ quality of life and survival outcomes.

Background: Appendix goblet cell carcinoids are known to share histological features of adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumours. Due to their low incidence, quality evidence is lacking for the management of these patients. Methods: We performed a single-centre retrospective study of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid (GCC; 1996-2014). Patients were divided into curative intent (CI) and palliative intent (PI) cohorts. Our primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: Seventy-four patients were eligible; 76% were treated with CI [surgery only (36%), cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC; 36%), adjuvant chemotherapy (20%) and a combination of CRS and HIPEC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (9%)], and 23% had advanced-stage disease amenable to palliative treatment (chemotherapy or supportive care) only. Completion right hemicolectomy, performed in 64% of the CI cohort, did not impact on the relapse rate or disease-free survival. FOLFOX chemotherapy was used in both the adjuvant and palliative settings; safety was as expected, and we observed a high rate (60%) of disease control in the palliative cohort. The estimated median OS (all patients), disease-free survival (CI patients) and progression-free survival (PI patients) were 52.1 (95% CI 29.4-90.3), 75.9 (26.6-not reached) and 5.3 (0.6-5.7) months, respectively. Age and stage were independent factors associated with OS in the multivariable analysis. Tang classification showed a trend for impact on OS. No benefit from specific adjuvant approach was identified; however, selection bias for treatment approach was observed. Conclusion: Prospective trials are needed to define optimal approaches in GCC. All GCC patients should be managed by specialized centres due to their esoteric behaviour; we provide management considerations based on our experience and conclusions.