Article

Effect of Surgery on the Outcome of Midgut Carcinoid Disease with Lymph Node and Liver Metastases

Department of Surgery, University Hospital, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden.
World Journal of Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.35). 08/2002; 26(8):991-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-002-6630-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We have evaluated survival and tumor-related symptoms in the presence of mesenteric lymph node and liver metastases in relation to surgical procedures in 314 patients (148 women, mean age at diagnosis 61 years; 249 with liver metastases) treated for midgut carcinoid tumors. Of the operated patients, 46% presented with severe abdominal pain and intestinal obstruction and were operated on before the diagnosis. Medical treatment (somatostatin analogs, interferon-a) was initiated in 67% and 86%, respectively. Surgical attempts included small intestine or ileocecal/right-sided colon resection with excision of mesenteric lymph node metastases. Most of the patients (n = 286) had mesenteric lymph node metastases; 33% of them had unresectable mesenteric lymph node metastases and underwent surgery without mesenteric dissection. Patients who underwent resection for the primary tumor had a longer survival than those with no resection (median survival 7.4 vs. 4.0 years; p <0.01). Patients who underwent successful excision of mesenteric metastases had a significantly longer survival than those with remaining lymph node metastases. Patients operated on for a primary tumor but with remaining lymph nodes but no liver metastases and who subsequently received interferon and somatostatin analog treatment had a median survival of 7.4 years. Resection of the primary tumor and the mesenteric lymph node metastases led to a significant reduction in tumor-related symptoms. Surgery to remove the primary intestinal tumor including mesenteric lymph node metastases is supported by the present results, even in the presence of liver metastases. Liver metastases and significant preoperative weight loss are identified as major negative prognostic factors for survival.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Per Hellman, Sep 23, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    • "Furthermore, there was improved survival for patients who presented with stage 4 disease who had resection of primary tumour compared to those in whom the primary was not resected. Previous studies have demonstrated a survival benefit in resection of primary tumour; however, the study population has been rather heterogenous [29]. A recent systematic review by Capurso et al. [17] concluded that there is a possible benefit of resection of the primary lesion in patients with unresectable liver metastases. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. Small bowel neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are the most common type of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours. The incidence and prevalence of these tumours are on the rise. The aims of this study were to determine prognostic clinicopathological features and whether the ENETS TNM staging system predicts prognosis and also. Method. Clinical data was collected retrospectively from 138 patients with histologically proven small bowel NETs managed at King's College Hospital. Histology was reviewed and small bowels tumours, were staged according to the ENETS TNM staging system. Results. Median age was 65 years (range 29-87). The 5-year survival was 79.5% and the 10-year survival was 48.5%. Resection of the primary tumour was associated with improved survival (120 versus 56 months, P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis prognostic factors were primary tumour resection and not having a carcinoid heart disease. TNM staging significantly separated survival of stage 2 and stage 3 from stage 4 NETs. Conclusion. Small bowel primary tumour resection and not having carcinoid heart disease are prognostic factors. The ENETS TNM staging and grading system appears to be of prognostic relevance to small bowel NETs.
    02/2013; 2013:420795. DOI:10.1155/2013/420795
  • Source
    • "The presence of liver metastases is a distinguishing feature of malignant neuroendocrine tumors and is the rate-limiting step on patient's survival [101, 102]. Based on available data (Tables 1 and 2), we advocate an aggressive surgical policy and propose an evidence-based surgical management algorithm (Figure 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of Neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELM) is challenging. The presence of NELM worsens survival outcome and almost 10% of all liver metastases are neuroendocrine in origin. There is no firm consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for NELM. A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed from 1995-2010, to collate the current evidence and formulate a sound management algorithm. There are 22 case series with a total of 793 patients who had undergone surgery for NELM. The overall survival ranges from 46-86% at 5 years, 35-79% at 10 years, and the median survival ranges from 52-123 months. After successful cytoreductive surgery, the mean duration of symptom reduction is between 16-26 months, and the 5-year recurrence/progression rate ranges from 59-76%. Five studies evaluated the efficacy of a combination cytoreductive strategy reporting survival rate of ranging from 83% at 3 years to 50% at 10 years. To date, there is no level 1 evidence comparing surgery versus other liver-directed treatment options for NELM. An aggressive surgical approach, including combination with additional liver-directed procedures is recommended as it leads to long-term survival, significant long-term palliation, and a good quality of life. A multidisciplinary approach should be established as the platform for decision making.
    01/2012; 2012:146590. DOI:10.1155/2012/146590
  • Source
    • "Finally, mainly sporadic GEP WDEC analyzed before any systemic therapeutic intervention were enrolled making the role of mitotic index or tumor slope evaluable. In accordance with previous results, the majority of WDEC patients with metastatic disease had liver metastases of varying extent, followed by bone metastases (Gibril et al. 1998, Madeira et al. 1998, Hellman et al. 2002, Modlin et al. 2003, Plöckinger et al. 2004, Panzuto et al. 2005, Tomassetti et al. 2006, Baudin 2007, Pape et al. 2008). Our study identifies age, the number of liver metastases, spontaneous tumor slope, and initial surgery as major predictors for overall survival in patients with metastatic GEP tumors. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Survival of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma (GEP WDEC) is not well characterized. We evaluated the long-term outcome and prognostic factors for survival in 118 patients with distant metastases from GEP WDEC. Inclusion criteria were 1) pathological review by a single pathologist according to the present WHO criteria, 2) absence of previous therapy apart from surgery, 3) complete morphological evaluation within 3 months including somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, and 4) follow-up at Gustave-Roussy Institute until death or study's end. Clinical, biological marker, and pathological parameters were analyzed in univariate and multivariate statistical models. Survival after the first complete imaging work-up of the metastatic disease was determined using Kaplan-Meier method. Overall, survival for 5 years after the diagnosis of metastatic disease was 54%. In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR): 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.08, P = 0.01), the number of liver metastases (HR: 3.4, 95% CI: 1.4-8.3, P = 0.01), tumor slope (HR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0-1.1, P = 0.001), and initial surgery (HR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.8, P = 0.01) were predictive of survival. Five-year survival was 100%, 91% (95% CI, 51-98%), 62% (95% CI, 37-83%), and 9% (95% CI, 6-32%) when patients had 0, 1, 2, 3 or more poor prognostic features respectively. This study enables the stratification of metastatic GEP WDEC patients into distinct risk groups. These risk categories can be used to tailor therapeutic approaches and also to design and interpret clinical trials.
    Endocrine Related Cancer 03/2009; 16(2):585-97. DOI:10.1677/ERC-08-0301 · 4.91 Impact Factor
Show more