Cargando…

What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a broad range of local and systemic treatment options. Still a lack of data regarding treatment sequences exists. The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in GEP-NETs depending on stage...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stiefel, Rahel, Lehmann, Kuno, Winder, Thomas, Siebenhüner, Alexander R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9926660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36782152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1
_version_ 1784888325481431040
author Stiefel, Rahel
Lehmann, Kuno
Winder, Thomas
Siebenhüner, Alexander R.
author_facet Stiefel, Rahel
Lehmann, Kuno
Winder, Thomas
Siebenhüner, Alexander R.
author_sort Stiefel, Rahel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a broad range of local and systemic treatment options. Still a lack of data regarding treatment sequences exists. The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in GEP-NETs depending on stage and treatment steps and compare our treatment decisions to the latest treatment recommendations of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2020 for GEP-NETs. METHODS: Patients were included in this retrospective single-center analysis from 2012—2016. All patients suffering from a GEP-NET, who were screened, treated or evaluated at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland were included in analysis. Patients with any other diagnosis of NET were not included. We used Kaplan Meier estimator as well as Cox regression to compare survival rates between different sites of localization, grades or stages and treatment sequences. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 256 GEP-NETs, most in advanced stage (62%) and located in small intestine tract or pancreatic gland. Survival depended on stage, grade, primary site and duration of response for the early systemic treatment. On average patients underwent 2.6 different treatment modalities, mostly depending on stage and higher tumor grade. Surgery was performed early but also in advanced stages, usually followed by Somatostatine-Agonist modalities. In distant disease (Stage IV), we investigated a positive effect of PFS after treatment with Somatostatine Analogues (SSA) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 – 0.97; p = 0.04) and systemic treatment (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 – 0.99; p = 0.047) if patients underwent prior surgery or endoscopic resection. Kaplan Meier distributions predict shorter OS in distant disease (Stage IV), (Figure. 1; HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.46 – 2.89; log-rank test, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis presents a great overview of all patients’, disease and treatment characteristics of GEP-NETs at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland. We illustrated survival (PFS) depending on implemented therapies. According to these findings, we formed a suggested treatment algorithm for advanced GEP-NETs, which does not differ from the latest treatment recommendation by ESMO guidelines for GEP-NETs. The results of this project may define GEP-NET patients’ selection for upcoming clinical prospective studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9926660
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99266602023-02-15 What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022? Stiefel, Rahel Lehmann, Kuno Winder, Thomas Siebenhüner, Alexander R. BMC Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a broad range of local and systemic treatment options. Still a lack of data regarding treatment sequences exists. The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in GEP-NETs depending on stage and treatment steps and compare our treatment decisions to the latest treatment recommendations of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2020 for GEP-NETs. METHODS: Patients were included in this retrospective single-center analysis from 2012—2016. All patients suffering from a GEP-NET, who were screened, treated or evaluated at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland were included in analysis. Patients with any other diagnosis of NET were not included. We used Kaplan Meier estimator as well as Cox regression to compare survival rates between different sites of localization, grades or stages and treatment sequences. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 256 GEP-NETs, most in advanced stage (62%) and located in small intestine tract or pancreatic gland. Survival depended on stage, grade, primary site and duration of response for the early systemic treatment. On average patients underwent 2.6 different treatment modalities, mostly depending on stage and higher tumor grade. Surgery was performed early but also in advanced stages, usually followed by Somatostatine-Agonist modalities. In distant disease (Stage IV), we investigated a positive effect of PFS after treatment with Somatostatine Analogues (SSA) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 – 0.97; p = 0.04) and systemic treatment (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 – 0.99; p = 0.047) if patients underwent prior surgery or endoscopic resection. Kaplan Meier distributions predict shorter OS in distant disease (Stage IV), (Figure. 1; HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.46 – 2.89; log-rank test, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis presents a great overview of all patients’, disease and treatment characteristics of GEP-NETs at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland. We illustrated survival (PFS) depending on implemented therapies. According to these findings, we formed a suggested treatment algorithm for advanced GEP-NETs, which does not differ from the latest treatment recommendation by ESMO guidelines for GEP-NETs. The results of this project may define GEP-NET patients’ selection for upcoming clinical prospective studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1. BioMed Central 2023-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9926660/ /pubmed/36782152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Stiefel, Rahel
Lehmann, Kuno
Winder, Thomas
Siebenhüner, Alexander R.
What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title_full What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title_fullStr What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title_full_unstemmed What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title_short What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
title_sort what have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for gep-net patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9926660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36782152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1
work_keys_str_mv AT stiefelrahel whathavewelearntfromthepastwouldtreatmentdecisionsforgepnetpatientsdifferbetween2012to2016bythenewrecommendationsin2022
AT lehmannkuno whathavewelearntfromthepastwouldtreatmentdecisionsforgepnetpatientsdifferbetween2012to2016bythenewrecommendationsin2022
AT winderthomas whathavewelearntfromthepastwouldtreatmentdecisionsforgepnetpatientsdifferbetween2012to2016bythenewrecommendationsin2022
AT siebenhuneralexanderr whathavewelearntfromthepastwouldtreatmentdecisionsforgepnetpatientsdifferbetween2012to2016bythenewrecommendationsin2022