Which Staging System Is More Suitable for Gastric Neuroendocrine Cancer and Mixed Adenoneuroendocrine Carcinomas? A Multicenter Cohort Study

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: current development, challenges, and clinical perspectives

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are highly heterogeneous and potentially malignant tumors arising from secretory cells of the neuroendocrine system. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are the most common subtype of NENs. Historically, GEP-NENs have been regarded as infrequent and slow-growing malignancies; however, recent data have demonstrated that the worldwide prevalence and incidence of GEP-NENs have increased exponentially over the last three decades. In addition, an increasing number of studies have proven that GEP-NENs result in a limited life expectancy. These findings suggested that the natural biology of GEP-NENs is more aggressive than commonly assumed. Therefore, there is an urgent need for advanced researches focusing on the diagnosis and management of patients with GEP-NENs. In this review, we have summarized the limitations and recent advancements in our comprehension of the epidemiology, clinical presentations, pathology, molecular biology, diagnosis, and treatment of GEP-NETs to identify factors contributing to delays in diagnosis and timely treatment of these patients.

Gastric mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms

The uncommon tumour known as gastric mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (G-MiNENs) is made up of parts of neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The biological and clinical features are different from those of gastric adenocarcinoma. Their pathophysiology, diagnostic standards, and clinical behaviour have all been the subject of lengthy debates, and their nomenclature has undergone multiple changes. Its emergence has created new challenges in the classification and diagnosis of gastric tumours. This review will update information on the topic, covering molecular aspects, diagnostic criteria, treatment, and prognostic factor discovery. It will also provide a historical context that will aid in understanding the evolution of the idea and nomenclature of mixed gastric tumours. Additionally, it will provide the reader a thorough understanding of this difficult topic of cancer that is applicable to real-world situations.

Novel staging for gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms by incorporating the WHO grading into the TNM staging system

BACKGROUND

The 8th tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) can be used to estimate the prognosis of gastric neuroendocrine tumor (gNET) and gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (gNEC) patients but not gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs).

METHODS

First, in the SEER (training) dataset, a TNMG system was built by combining the WHO G grade (G1-4; NEC grouped into G4) with the 8th AJCC T (T1-4), N (N0-1), and M (M0-1) stage, which was then validated in a Chinese (validation) cohort.

RESULTS

In all, 2245 gNENs cases from the training dataset and 280 cases from the validation dataset were eligible. The T stage, M stage, and G grade were independent prognostic factors for OS in both datasets (all p < 0.05). The TNMG staging system demonstrated better C-index for predicting OS than the 8th AJCC TNM staging system in both the training (0.87, 95%CI: 0.86-0.88 vs. 0.79, 95%CI: 0.77-0.81) and validation (0.77, 95%CI: 0.73-0.80 vs. 0.75, 95%CI: 0.71-0.79) datasets. The AUC of the 3-year OS for the TNMG staging system was 0.936 and 0.817 in the SEER and validation dataset, respectively; higher than those of the 8th AJCC system (vs. 0.843 and 0.779, respectively). DCA revealed that compared with the 8th AJCC TNM staging system, the TNMG staging system demonstrated superior net prognostic benefit in both the training and validation datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed TNMG staging system could more accurately predict the 3- and 5-year OS rate of gNENs patients than the 8th AJCC TNM staging system.

Textbook Outcome as a measure of surgical quality assessment and prognosis in gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma: A large multicenter sample analysis

OBJECTIVE

Quality assurance is crucial for oncological surgical treatment assessment. For rare diseases, single-quality indicators are not enough. We aim to develop a comprehensive and reproducible measurement, called the "Textbook Outcome" (TO), to assess the quality of surgical treatment and prognosis of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (G-NEC) patients.

METHODS

Data from patients with primary diagnosed G-NEC included in 24 high-volume Chinese hospitals from October 2005 to September 2018 were analyzed. TO included receiving a curative resection, ≥15 lymph nodes examined, no severe postoperative complications, hospital stay ≤21 d, and no hospital readmission ≤30 d after discharge. Hospital variation in TO was analyzed using a case mix-adjusted funnel plot. Prognostic factors of survival and risk factors for non-Textbook Outcome (non-TO) were analyzed using Cox and logistic models, respectively.

RESULTS

TO was achieved in 56.6% of 860 G-NEC patients. TO patients had better overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) than non-TO patients (P<0.05). Moreover, TO patients accounted for 60.3% of patients without recurrence. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed non-TO as an independent risk factor for OS, DFS, and RFS of G-NEC patients (P<0.05). Increasing TO rates were associated with improved OS for G-NEC patients, but not hospital volume. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that non-lower tumors, open surgery, and >200 mL blood loss were independent risk factors for non-TO patients (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TO is strongly associated with multicenter surgical quality and prognosis for G-NEC patients. Factors predicting non-TO are identified, which may help guide strategies to optimize G-NEC outcomes.

Comparison of Survival and Patterns of Recurrence in Gastric Neuroendocrine Carcinoma, Mixed Adenoneuroendocrine Carcinoma, and Adenocarcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma are rare pathological types of gastric cancer, and there is a lack of multicenter studies comparing the prognosis and recurrence patterns of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma, gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences in long-term survival and patterns of recurrence among gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma, gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients with resectable gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma and gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma at 23 hospitals in China from January 2006 to December 2016. In addition, patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were selected as controls. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to match pathological stage among the different pathological types, and disease-free survival (DFS), postrecurrence survival (PRS), and patterns of recurrence were examined. Data analysis was conducted from July 15, 2020, to October 21, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Curative resection for gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma, gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were DFS and patterns of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 3689 patients were analyzed (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [55-69] years; 2748 [74.5%] men), including 503 patients (13.6%) with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma, 401 patients (10.9%) with gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, and 2785 patients (75.5%) with gastric adenocarcinoma. After propensity score matching, 5-year DFS was 47.6% (95% CI, 42.7%-52.5%) for patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma, compared with 57.6% (95% CI, 55.1%-60.1%) with gastric adenocarcinoma (P < .001) and 51.1% (95% CI, 46.0%-56.2%) for patients with gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, compared with 57.8% (95% CI, 55.1%-60.5%) patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (P = .02). Multivariable analyses found that, compared with gastric adenocarcinoma, gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.40-1.93) and gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49) were independent risk factors associated with worse DFS. Compared with matched patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma were more likely to have distant recurrence (268 patients [17.2%] vs 101 patients [23.7%]; P = .002), as were patients with gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (232 patients [17.3%] vs 76 patients [22.8%]; P = .02). In multivariate analysis, gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.66-2.98) and gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24-2.34) were independent risk factors associated with distant recurrence. Additionally, T3 to T4 stage (odds ratio, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.57-5.14; P = .001) and lymph node metastasis (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.31-3.10; P = .002) were independent risk factors associated with distant recurrence of gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma and gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma or gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma had worse prognoses and were more prone to distant recurrence than those with gastric adenocarcinoma. Thus, different follow-up and treatment strategies should be developed to improve the long-term survival of patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma or gastric mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, especially patients with tumors penetrating into the subserosa or deeper layers or with lymph node metastasis.

Do neuroendocrine carcinomas and mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract have the same prognosis? A SEER database analysis of 12,878 cases

BACKGROUND

Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) and mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN) in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are both rare and malignant; however, it is unclear whether their prognosis is the same.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 12,878 patients with NEC or MiNEN in the GI tract were reviewed retrospectively by searching the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program database. Next, we compared the characteristics and survival between patients with NEC or MiNEN and further analyzed the prognostic factors for the patients.

RESULTS

The data showed that patients with MiNEN had a worse prognosis as compared with patients with pure NEC in the small intestine (SI) and appendix, whereas there was no significant survival difference between NEC and MiNEN in the other parts of the GI system. On the whole, age ⩾55 years (p < 0.0001), male (p = 0.002), being diagnosed at TNM Stage II-IV (p < 0.0001) or not receiving surgical treatment (p < 0.0001) were the independent negative prognostic factors for NEC patients, whereas age ⩾55 years (p = 0.003), being diagnosed at TNM Stage III-IV (p < 0.001) or not receiving surgical treatment (p < 0.001) were identified as the independent negative prognostic factors for the MiNEN patients. Furthermore, when NECs or MiNENs were classified based on the primary tumor site, the results showed that the prognostic factors for NEC and MiNEN varied between the tumor sites.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic differences between NECs and MiNENs in the GI tract are heterogeneous and site-related. Patients with appendiceal or SI MiNEN have a poorer prognosis than patients with pure appendiceal or SI NEC. Therefore, we should pay more attention to patients with MiNEN in the SI and appendix and monitor them more closely.