Abstract
Background
The role of surgery in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm grade 3 (pNEN-G3) treatment remains unclear. We aimed to clarify the role of surgery for pNEN-G3, which has recently been reclassified as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor-G3 (pNET-G3) and pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma-G3 (pNEC-G3), with and without metastases, respectively.
Methods
We analyzed a subgroup of patients from the Japanese pancreatic NEC study, a Japanese multicenter case-series study of pNEN-G3. Pathologists subclassified 67 patients as having pNET-G3 or pNEC-G3 based on morphological features. We compared the overall survival (OS) rates among patients who were grouped according to whether they had undergone tumor-targeted surgery for tumors without (SwoM) or with (SwM) metastases, or non-surgical procedures (NS).
Results
Data from 21 patients with pNET-G3 (SwoM, n = 6; SwM, n = 5; NS, n = 10) and 46 patients with pNEC-G3 (SwoM, n = 8; SwM, n = 5; NS, n = 33) were analyzed. OS of patients with pNET-G3 was significantly longer after SwoM and SwM than with NS (p = 0.018 and p = 0.022). In contrast, OS did not significantly differ between either SwoM or SwM and NS (p = 0.093 and p = 0.489) among patients with pNEC-G3.
Conclusion
The role of surgery should be considered separately for pNET-G3 and pNEC-G3. Although SwoM and SwM can be considered for pNET-G3, caution is advised before considering SwM and SwoM for pNEC-G3.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Basturk O, Tang L, Hruban RH, et al. Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas: a clinicopathologic analysis of 44 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(4):437–47.
Basturk O, Yang Z, Tang LH, et al. The high-grade (WHO G3) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor category is morphologically and biologically heterogenous and includes both well differentiated and poorly differentiated neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39(5):683–90.
Yachida S, Vakiani E, White CM, et al. Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(2):173–84.
Sorbye H, Welin S, Langer SW, et al. Predictive and prognostic factors for treatment and survival in 305 patients with advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3): the NORDIC NEC study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(1):152–60.
Reid MD, Balci S, Saka B, Adsay NV. Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: current concepts and controversies. Endocr Pathol. 2014;25(1):65–79.
Heetfeld M, Chougnet CN, Olsen IH, et al. Characteristics and treatment of patients with G3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2015;22(4):657–64.
Velayoudom-Cephise FL, Duvillard P, Foucan L, et al. Are G3 ENETS neuroendocrine neoplasms heterogeneous? Endocr Relat Cancer. 2013;20(5):649–57.
Hijioka S, Hosoda W, Mizuno N, et al. Does the WHO 2010 classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms accurately characterize pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas? J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(5):564–72.
Lloyd RV, Osamura RY, Klöppel G, Rosai J. WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2017.
Kulke MH, Shah MH, Benson AB, Bergsland E, Berlin JD, et al. NCCN guidelines version 2.2016: neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2016.
Strosberg JR, Coppola D, Klimstra DS, et al. The NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of poorly differentiated (high-grade) extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas. Pancreas. 2010;39(6):799–800.
Casas F, Ferrer F, Farrus B, Casals J, Biete A. Primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a review of the literature with emphasis on therapy and prognosis. Cancer. 1997;80(8):1366–72.
Brenner B, Tang LH, Klimstra DS, Kelsen DP. Small-cell carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract: a review. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(13):2730–39.
Fischer L, Bergmann F, Schimmack S, et al. Outcome of surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2014;101(11):1405–12.
Cho CS, Labow DM, Tang L, et al. Histologic grade is correlated with outcome after resection of hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Cancer. 2008;113(1):126–34.
Kulke MH, Shah MH, Benson AB, Bergsland E, Berlin JD, et al. NCCN guidelines version 3.2017; neuroendocrine tumors. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2017.
Garcia-Carbonero R, Sorbye H, Baudin E, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for high-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and neuroendocrine carcinomas. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103(2):186–94.
Hijioka S, Hosoda W, Matsuo K, et al. Rb loss and KRAS mutation are predictors of the response to platinum-based chemotherapy in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm with grade 3: A Japanese multicenter pancreatic NEN-G3 study. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(16):4625–32.
Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Pulitano C, et al. Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3129–36.
Glazer ES, Tseng JF, Al-Refaie W, et al. Long-term survival after surgical management of neuroendocrine hepatic metastases. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(6):427–33.
Lesurtel M, Nagorney DM, Mazzaferro V, Jensen RT, Poston GJ. When should a liver resection be performed in patients with liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumours? A systematic review with practice recommendations. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(1):17–22.
Huttner FJ, Schneider L, Tarantino I, et al. Palliative resection of the primary tumor in 442 metastasized neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: a population-based, propensity score-matched survival analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400(6):715–23.
Keutgen XM, Nilubol N, Glanville J, et al. Resection of primary tumor site is associated with prolonged survival in metastatic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Surgery. 2016;159(1):311–18.
Hill JS, McPhee JT, McDade TP, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: the impact of surgical resection on survival. Cancer. 2009;115(4):741–51.
Crippa S, Partelli S, Bassi C, et al. Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas: Morphology matters. Surgery. 2016;159(3):862–71.
Haugvik SP, Janson ET, Osterlund P, et al. Surgical treatment as a principle for patients with high-grade pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: a nordic multicenter comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1721–28.
Partelli S, Inama M, Rinke A, et al. Long-term outcomes of surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with synchronous liver metastases. Neuroendocrinology. 2015;102(1–2):68–76.
Galleberg RB, Knigge U, Tiensuu Janson E, et al. Results after surgical treatment of liver metastases in patients with high-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1682–89.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) under Grant Number JP15ck0106138h0002, and by a Grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (Grant No. JP26461041). The main analysis of the Japanese pNEC study was reported by Hijioka et al.18
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Junji Furuse fully declares any financial or other potential conflicts of interest as follows: honoraria from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Sumitomo Dainippon, Eli Lilly Japan, Astellas, Ono, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Merck Serono, Takeda, Eisai, MSD, Shionogi, J-Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Mochida, Nippon Kayaku, EA Pharma, Sawai, Teijin Pharma; consulting or advisory role with Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Sumitomo Dainippon, Eli Lilly Japan, Astellas, Ono, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Merck Serono, Takeda, Eisai, MSD, Shionogi, J-Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Sanofi, Sandoz, Otsuka, Zeria, Fujifilm, Astra Zeneca, Asahi Kasei, Shire; and research funding from J-Pharma, Taiho, Sumitomo Dainippon, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Yakult, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Astellas, Zeria, Novartis, Nanocarrier, Shionogi, Onco Therapy Science, Eli Lilly Japan, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Eisai, NanoCarrier, Mochida, Baxalta, and Sanofi. Nobumasa Mizuno fully declares any financial or other potential conflicts of interest as follows: honoraria from Taiho, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Yakult, and Teijin Pharma; advisory role with Teijin Pharma; and research funding from Taiho, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Zeria Pharmaceutical, NanoCarrier, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Pharma Valley Center, Incyte Inc., and Yakult. Tsukasa Yoshida, Susumu Hijioka, Waki Hosoda, Makoto Ueno, Masayuki Furukawa, Noritoshi Kobayashi, Masafumi Ikeda, Tetsuhide Ito, Yuzo Kodama, Chigusa Morizane, Kenji Notohara, Hiroki Taguchi, Masayuki Kitano, Kei Yane, Yoshiaki Tsuchiya, Izumi Komoto, Hiroki Tanaka, Akihito Tsuji, Syunpei Hashigo, Tetsuya Mine, Atsushi Kanno, Go Murohisa, Katsuyuki Miyabe, Tadayuki Takagi, Nobutaka Matayoshi, Masafumi Sakaguchi, Hiroshi Ishii, Yasushi Kojima, Keitaro Matsuo, Hideyuki Yoshitomi, Shoji Nakamori, Hiroaki Yanagimoto and Yasushi Yatabe declare they have no conflicts of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoshida, T., Hijioka, S., Hosoda, W. et al. Surgery for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor G3 and Carcinoma G3 Should be Considered Separately. Ann Surg Oncol 26, 1385–1393 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07252-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07252-8