Cargando…

Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice

The incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is increasing, especially for patients with early stages and grade 1 tumours. Current evidence also shows increased prevalence, probably reflecting earlier stage diagnosis and improvement of treatment options. Definition of adequate postsurgical follo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lamarca, Angela, Clouston, Hamish, Barriuso, Jorge, McNamara, Mairéad G, Frizziero, Melissa, Mansoor, Was, Hubner, Richard A, Manoharan, Prakash, O’Dwyer, Sarah, Valle, Juan W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6833016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31590343
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101630
_version_ 1783466279760297984
author Lamarca, Angela
Clouston, Hamish
Barriuso, Jorge
McNamara, Mairéad G
Frizziero, Melissa
Mansoor, Was
Hubner, Richard A
Manoharan, Prakash
O’Dwyer, Sarah
Valle, Juan W
author_facet Lamarca, Angela
Clouston, Hamish
Barriuso, Jorge
McNamara, Mairéad G
Frizziero, Melissa
Mansoor, Was
Hubner, Richard A
Manoharan, Prakash
O’Dwyer, Sarah
Valle, Juan W
author_sort Lamarca, Angela
collection PubMed
description The incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is increasing, especially for patients with early stages and grade 1 tumours. Current evidence also shows increased prevalence, probably reflecting earlier stage diagnosis and improvement of treatment options. Definition of adequate postsurgical follow-up for NENs is a current challenge. There are limited guidelines, and heterogeneity in adherence to those available is notable. Unfortunately, the population of patients at greatest risk of recurrence has not been defined clearly. Some studies support that for patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs), factors such as primary tumour (T), stage, grade (Ki-67), tumour size, and lymph node metastases (N) are of relevance. For bronchial neuroendocrine tumours (LungNETs) and small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours (siNETs), similar factors have been identified. This review summarises the evidence supporting the rationale behind follow-up after curative resection in well-differentiated PanNETs, siNETs, and LungNETS. Published evidence informing relapse rate, disease-free survival, and relapse patterns are discussed, together with an overview of current guidelines informing postsurgical investigations and duration of follow-up.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6833016
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68330162019-11-25 Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice Lamarca, Angela Clouston, Hamish Barriuso, Jorge McNamara, Mairéad G Frizziero, Melissa Mansoor, Was Hubner, Richard A Manoharan, Prakash O’Dwyer, Sarah Valle, Juan W J Clin Med Review The incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is increasing, especially for patients with early stages and grade 1 tumours. Current evidence also shows increased prevalence, probably reflecting earlier stage diagnosis and improvement of treatment options. Definition of adequate postsurgical follow-up for NENs is a current challenge. There are limited guidelines, and heterogeneity in adherence to those available is notable. Unfortunately, the population of patients at greatest risk of recurrence has not been defined clearly. Some studies support that for patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs), factors such as primary tumour (T), stage, grade (Ki-67), tumour size, and lymph node metastases (N) are of relevance. For bronchial neuroendocrine tumours (LungNETs) and small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours (siNETs), similar factors have been identified. This review summarises the evidence supporting the rationale behind follow-up after curative resection in well-differentiated PanNETs, siNETs, and LungNETS. Published evidence informing relapse rate, disease-free survival, and relapse patterns are discussed, together with an overview of current guidelines informing postsurgical investigations and duration of follow-up. MDPI 2019-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6833016/ /pubmed/31590343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101630 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Lamarca, Angela
Clouston, Hamish
Barriuso, Jorge
McNamara, Mairéad G
Frizziero, Melissa
Mansoor, Was
Hubner, Richard A
Manoharan, Prakash
O’Dwyer, Sarah
Valle, Juan W
Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title_full Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title_fullStr Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title_full_unstemmed Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title_short Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice
title_sort follow-up recommendations after curative resection of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours: review of current evidence and clinical practice
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6833016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31590343
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101630
work_keys_str_mv AT lamarcaangela followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT cloustonhamish followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT barriusojorge followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT mcnamaramaireadg followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT frizzieromelissa followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT mansoorwas followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT hubnerricharda followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT manoharanprakash followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT odwyersarah followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice
AT vallejuanw followuprecommendationsaftercurativeresectionofwelldifferentiatedneuroendocrinetumoursreviewofcurrentevidenceandclinicalpractice