Cargando…

Patterns of Lymph Node Metastasis and Optimal Surgical Strategy in Small (≤20 mm) Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND: Regional lymph node metastasis (LNM) is crucial for planning additional lymphadenectomy, and is directly correlated with poor prognosis in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). However, the patterns of LNM for small (≤20 mm) GEP-NETs remain unclear. This population-bas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cai, Yibo, Liu, Zhuo, Jiang, Lai, Ma, Dening, Zhou, Zhenyuan, Ju, Haixing, Zhu, Yuping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9350735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35937823
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.871830
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Regional lymph node metastasis (LNM) is crucial for planning additional lymphadenectomy, and is directly correlated with poor prognosis in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). However, the patterns of LNM for small (≤20 mm) GEP-NETs remain unclear. This population-based study aimed at evaluating LNM patterns and identifying optimal surgical strategies from the standpoint of lymph node dissemination. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study retrieved data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries database for 17,308 patients diagnosed as having localized well-differentiated GEP-NETs ≤ 20 mm between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017. The patterns of LNM were characterized in 6,622 patients who underwent extended resection for adequate lymph node harvest. RESULTS: Of 6,622 patients with localized small GEP-NETs in the current study, 2,380 (36%) presented with LNM after regional lymphadenectomy. Nodal involvement was observed in approximately 7.4%, 49.1%, 13.6%, 53.7%, 13.8%, 7.8%, and 15.4% of gastric (g-), small intestinal (si-), appendiceal (a-), colonic (c-), rectal (r-), non-functional pancreatic (nfp-), and functional pancreatic (fp-) NETs ≤ 20 mm. Patients with younger age, larger tumor size, and muscularis invasion were more likely to present with LNM. Additional lymphadenectomy conferred a significant survival advantage in NETs (≤10 mm: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33–0.66; p < 0.001; 11–20 mm: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34–0.85; p = 0.008) and fp-NETs ≤ 20 mm (HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02–0.36; p = 0.001), as well as g-NETs (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16–0.96; p = 0.041) and c-NETs of 11–20 mm (HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01–0.48; p = 0.007). Survival benefits of additional lymphadenectomy were not found in a-NETs, r-NETs, and nfp-NETs with a small size. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increased risk for nodal metastasis, primary tumor resection with regional lymphadenectomy is a potential optimal surgical strategy for si-NETs and fp-NETs ≤ 20 mm, as well as g-NETs and c-NETs of 11–20 mm. Local resection is an appropriate and reliable surgical approach for a-NETs, r-NETs, and nfp-NETs ≤ 20 mm.