Clinical Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Clinical Practice: A Formal Consensus Exercise

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Well-structured international guidelines are currently available regarding the management of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). However, in relation to the multiplicity of treatments and the relative rarity and heterogeneity of NENs, there are many controversial issues in which clinical evidence is insufficient and for which expert opinion can be of help. A group of experts selected 14 relevant topics and formulated relative statements concerning controversial issues in several areas on diagnosis, prognosis, therapeutic strategies, and patient follow-up. Specific statements have also been formulated regarding patient management on radioligand therapy (RLT), as well as in the presence of co-morbidities or bone metastases. All the statements were drafted, discussed, modified, and then approved. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) method was used to obtain consensus. The results of this paper can facilitate the clinical approach of patients with NENs in daily practice in areas where there is scarcity or absence of clinical evidence. ABSTRACT: Many treatment approaches are now available for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). While several societies have issued guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of NENs, there are still areas of controversy for which there is limited guidance. Expert opinion can thus be of support where firm recommendations are lacking. A group of experts met to formulate 14 statements relative to diagnosis and treatment of NENs and presented herein. The nominal group and estimate-talk-estimate techniques were used. The statements covered a broad range of topics from tools for diagnosis to follow-up, evaluation of response, treatment efficacy, therapeutic sequence, and watchful waiting. Initial prognostic characterization should be based on clinical information as well as histopathological analysis and morphological and functional imaging. It is also crucial to optimize RLT for patients with a NEN starting from accurate characterization of the patient and disease. Follow-up should be patient/tumor tailored with a shared plan about timing and type of imaging procedures to use to avoid safety issues. It is also stressed that patient-reported outcomes should receive greater attention, and that a multidisciplinary approach should be mandatory. Due to the clinical heterogeneity and relative lack of definitive evidence for NENs, personalization of diagnostic–therapeutic work-up is crucial.