4.5 Article

TNM Staging of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors An Observational Analysis and Comparison by Both AJCC and ENETS Systems From 1 Single Institution

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 94, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000660

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and compare the surgical outcome of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) using the 2 tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) systems by both the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual (seventh edition) and the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS). Moreover, we sought to validate the prognostic value of the new AJCC criterion. Data of 145 consecutive patients who were all surgically treated and histologically diagnosed as p-NETs from January 2002 to June 2013 in our single institution were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for AJCC classifications of stages I, II, III, and IV were 79.5%, 63.1%, 15.0%, and NA, respectively, (P< 0.005). As for the ENETS system, the OS rates at 5 years for stages I, II, III, and IV were 75.5%, 72.7%, 29.0%, and NA, respectively, (P< 0.005). Both criteria present no statistically notable difference between stage I and stage II (P> 0.05) but between stage I and stages III and IV (P< 0.05), as well as those between stage II and stages III and IV (P< 0.05). Difference between stage III and IV by ENETS was significant (P = 0.031), whereas that by the AJCC was not (P = 0.144). What's more, the AJCC Staging Manual (seventh edition) was statistically significant in both uni-and multivariate analyses by Cox regression (P< 0.005 and P = 0.025, respectively). Our study indicated that the ENETS TNM staging system might be superior to the AJCC Staging Manual (seventh edition) for the clinical practice of p-NETs. Together with tumor grade and radical resection, the new AJCC system was also validated to be an independent predictor for p-NETs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available