4.4 Article

Risk Factors for Disease Progression in Advanced Jejunoileal Neuroendocrine Tumors

期刊

NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 96, 期 1, 页码 32-40

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000334038

关键词

Carcinoid; Neuroendocrine tumors; Progression-free survival; Risk factors; Midgut

资金

  1. Sapienza University of Roma [2009/C26F09NZLJ, 2009/C26A09N5NJ]
  2. It.A.NET (Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors)
  3. Associazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro
  4. Fondazione CariParo, Padova, Italy
  5. Fondazione Cariverona, Verona
  6. Italian Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Knowledge of clinical course in advanced jejunoileal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is poor. Aim: To investigate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and possible predictors for disease progression (DP) in advanced jejunoileal NETs. Patients and Methods: We carried out a multicenter, retrospective analysis of incoming patients with sporadic advanced jejunoileal NETs. PFS and OS were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for progression were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazards method. Results: Of the 114 patients enrolled, 46.5% had functioning tumors, 93.9% had stage IV disease, and 57.3 and 42.7% were G1 and G2 tumors, respectively. During a median follow-up of 48 months (interquartile range 29-84 months), DP occurred in 61.4% of patients, after 19 months (interquartile range 10-41 months) from diagnosis. Median PFS was 36 months. The 2-year and 5-year PFS were 59 and 33%, respectively, while 5-year OS was 77.5%. Ki67 was the sole strong independent risk factor for unfavorable outcome according to multivariate analysis, being significantly associated with both PFS and OS. Conclusions: DP occurred in the majority of patients with advanced jejunoileal NETs, with median PFS being 36 months. Ki67 was a significant predictor of DP and should be considered in determining appropriate treatments and planning follow-up for these patients. Copyright (c) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据