Risk factors for metastasis and survival of patients with T1 gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma treated with endoscopic therapy versus surgical resection

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) display peculiar site-specific features among all NENs. Their incidence and prevalence have been rising in the past few decades. gNENs comprise gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas (gNECs) and gastric neuroendocrine tumours (gNETs), the latter further classified into three types. Type I anatype II gNETs are gastrin-dependent and develop in chronic atrophic gastritis and as part of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome within a multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome (MEN1), respectively. Type III or sporadic gNETs develop in the absence of hypergastrinaemia and in the context of a near-normal or inflamed gastric mucosa. gNECs can also develop in the context of variable atrophic, relatively normal or inflamed gastric mucosa. Each gNEN type has different clinical characteristics and requires a different multidisciplinary approach in expert dedicated centres. Type I gNETs are managed mainly by endoscopy or surgery, whereas the treatment of type II gNETs largely depends on the management of the concomitant MEN1. Type III gNETs may require both locoregional approaches and systemic treatments; NECs are often metastatic and therefore require systemic treatment. Specific data regarding the systemic treatment of gNENs are lacking and are derived from the treatment of intestinal NETs and NECs. An enhanced understanding of molecular and clinical pathophysiology is needed to improve the management and outcomes of patients' gNETs.

Clinicopathological characteristics of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: A comprehensive analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic implications of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs).

METHODS

A retrospective enrollment of 142 patients diagnosed with g-NENs was conducted at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2021. The study compared essential clinicopathological features and survival rates. Additionally, the prognosis of gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas/mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NEC/MiNEN) were contrasted with those of gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC).

RESULTS

The study comprised a total of 142 g-NENs cases, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 2:1. The 5-year survival rates for g-NEC and g-MiNEN were 26.7% and 35.2%, respectively. Corresponding 5-year survival rates for G1 and G2 were observed at 100% and 80.0%, respectively. g-NEC/MiNEN showed a significantly worse prognosis compared to g-NET (p < 0.001). g-NEC/MiNEN exhibited a poor prognosis compared to GAC (p < 0.001), and within poorly differentiated GAC, g-NEC/MiNEN demonstrated a worse prognosis (p = 0.007). Additionally, patients receiving postoperative adjuvant therapy exhibited notably prolonged overall survival (OS) in the case of g-NEC/MiNEN (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

In short, the prognosis of g-NEC/MiNEN was worse than that of g-NET, GAC and poorly differentiated GAC, but this group benefit from postoperative adjuvant therapy.

Therapeutic Challenges for Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Take It or Leave It?

Background and Objectives: Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) represent rare but increasingly recognized tumors. They are distinguished into three main clinical types (type-1, type-2, and type-3) according to gastrin level and at histological evaluation in well-differentiated G1, G2, or G3 lesions, as well as poorly-differentiated lesions. Small type-1 and type-2 neoplasms with low proliferation indices demonstrated excellent survival without progression during an extended follow-up period, and for these reasons, active endoscopic observation or endoscopic resection are feasible options. On the other hand, surgery is the treatment of choice for more aggressive type-3, G3, or infiltrating neoplasms. The present study aims to comprehensively review and compare the available therapeutic strategies for gNENs. Materials and Methods: A computerized literature search was performed using relevant keywords to identify all of the pertinent articles with particular attention to gNEN endoscopic treatment. Results: In recent years, different endoscopic resective techniques (such as endoscopic mucosal dissection, modified endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic full-thickness resection) have been developed, showing a high rate of complete resection for advanced and more aggressive lesions. Conclusions: Overall, gNENs represent a heterogeneous group of lesions with varying behavior which require personalized management. The non-operative approach for small type-1 gNENs seems to be feasible and should be promoted. A step-up approach with minimally invasive endoscopic therapies might be proposed, particularly for type-1 gNEN. On the other hand, it is important to recognize the negative prognostic factors in order to identify those rare cases requiring more aggressive approaches. A possible therapeutic algorithm for localized gNEN management is provided.

Application of machine learning algorithms to predict lymph node metastasis in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms

Background

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are tumors that originate from secretory cells of the diffuse endocrine system and typically produce bioactive amines or peptide hormones. This paper describes the development and validation of a predictive model of the risk of lymph node metastasis among gastric NEN patients based on machine learning platform.

Methods

In this investigation, data from 1256 patients were used, of whom 119 patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University in China and 1137 cases from the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) database were combined. Six machine learning algorithms, including the logistic regression model (LR), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), Naive Bayes (NB), support vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbor algorithm (KNN), were used to build the predictive model. The performance of the models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

Results

Among the 1256 patients with gastric NENs, 276 patients (21.97 %) developed lymph node metastasis. T stage, tumor size, degree of differentiation, and sex were predictive factors of lymph node metastasis. The RF model achieved the best predictive performance among the six machine learning models, with an AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.81, 0.78, 0.76, and 0.82, respectively.

Conclusion

The RF model provided the best prediction and can help physicians determine the lymph node metastasis risk of gastric NEN patients to formulate individualized medical strategies.

Endoscopic features of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic features of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (G-NEC) have not been clarified; therefore, they were investigated in relation to clinicopathological findings.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with G-NECs who had undergone endoscopic or surgical resection at our institution between January 2005 and March 2022 were included in this retrospective study. The endoscopic and clinicopathological findings of the lesions were analyzed to provide information of diagnostic value. In addition, cases of gastric neuroendocrine tumor (G-NET) and common-type gastric adenocarcinoma treated in the same study period were identified to compare the endoscopic findings between each G-NEC versus G-NET, and G-NEC versus common-type gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients with common-type gastric adenocarcinoma were matched for age, sex, tumor size, and depth of tumor invasion in 1:3 ratio.

RESULTS

Among 15 patients with 15 G-NECs, submucosal tumor-like marginal elevation (87%), adherent white coat (67%), and ulceration with a distinct border (60%) were characteristic endoscopic findings in white-light images. Magnifying narrow-band imaging endoscopy revealed an absent microsurface (MS) pattern plus disrupted irregular microvessel (MV) in five (71%) of seven cases with evaluable MS and MV patterns. The area with an absent MS pattern plus disrupted irregular MV corresponded to the histological finding of NEC component in all five cases. These endoscopic features were all significantly more frequent in G-NECs than G-NETs (n = 22) or common-type gastric adenocarcinomas (n = 45).

CONCLUSIONS

These endoscopic features should be taken into consideration to increase the index of suspicion and to improve the accuracy of target biopsies for G-NEC.