Next Article in Journal
Current Main Topics in Multiple Myeloma
Previous Article in Journal
Quality of End-of-Life Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/cancers15082202
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs

by
Alice Laffi
1,*,
Andrea Gerardo Antonio Lania
2,3,*,
Alberto Ragni
4,
Valentina Di Vito
5,
Alessia Liccardi
6,
Manila Rubino
7,
Franz Sesti
5,
Annamaria Colao
8,9,
Antongiulio Faggiano
10 and
on behalf of the NIKE Group
†
1
Hematology and Oncology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20072 Milan, Italy
3
Endocrinology, Diabetology and Medical Andrology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy
4
Endocrinologia e Malattie Metaboliche, AO SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Via Venezia, 16, 15121 Alessandria, Italy
5
Department of Experimental Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
6
Operative Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Andrology and Diabetology, Federico II University of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
7
Servizio di Endocrinologia Oncologica, European Institute of Oncology, IEO, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141 Milan, Italy
8
Endocrinology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University Federico II, 80126 Naples, Italy
9
UNESCO “Education for Health and Sustainable Development”, Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy
10
Endocrinology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sant’Andrea Hospital, ENETS Center of Excellence, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Collaborators of the NIKE Group is provided in the Acknowledgment section.
Cancers 2023, 15(8), 2202; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082202
Submission received: 25 February 2023 / Revised: 4 April 2023 / Accepted: 6 April 2023 / Published: 8 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Pathophysiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Gastric well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (g-NETs) occur in 5–15% of cases of neuroendocrine neoplasms in the gastrointestinal tract, and they mostly present quite indolent biological behavior. Furthermore, among the g-NETs, the type 3 versions represent the most aggressive subcategory, with the highest incidence of lymph-vascular infiltration and metastases at diagnosis. For these reasons, a more interventional approach to the management of type 3 g-NETs has been generally shared by the scientific community. However, a case-by-case discussion amongst a multidisciplinary NET-dedicated team revealed that partial or complete gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy had become an out-of-proportion indication within such cases regarding small and/or low-grade lesions. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the real-life approaches to type 3 g-NETs and identify some of the prognostic factors that might impact management choices. We found that size and gastric wall infiltration and grading may represent three factors that should be taken into account to better manage type 3 g-NETs.

Abstract

Purpose: to collect data from real-life experiences of the management of type 3 g-NETs and identify possible prognostic factors that may impact the decision-making process. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature on type 3 g-NET management using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. We included cohort studies, case series, and case reports written in the English language. Results: We selected 31 out of 556 articles from between 2001 and 2022. In 2 out of the 31 studies, a 10 mm and 20 mm cut-off size were respectively associated with a higher risk of gastric wall infiltration and/or lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis. The selected studies reported a higher risk of lymph node or distant metastasis at diagnosis in the case of muscularis propria infiltration or beyond, irrespective of the dimensions or grading. From these findings, size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration seem to be the most relevant factors in management staff making choices and prognoses of type 3 g-NET patients. We produced a hypothetical flowchart for a standardized approach to these rare diseases. Conclusion: Further prospective analyses are needed to validate the prognostic impact of the use of size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration as prognostic factors in the management of type 3 g-NETs.

1. Introduction

Well-differentiated gastric neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the stomach are rare tumors and represent 5–15% of whole gastrointestinal (GI) NETs [1]. The incidence of these tumors has increased in recent years due to the widespread use of endoscopy [2].
Gastric NETs (g-NETs) originate from histamine-secreting enterochromaffin-like cells (ECL) within the mucosa of the stomach. As with other gastro-enteropancreatic (GEP) NETs (poorly differentiated morphology apart), g-NETs are classified according to the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification as being grade (G) 1, G2, and G3 based on the proliferation index by Ki-67 (<3%, between 3 and 20%, and >20% respectively) [3]. Furthermore, g-NETs also undergo the Rindi et al. classification that subdivides the categories according to clinical and pathological features and biological behavior [4,5].
The most common and the oldest subcategories are represented by types 1, 2, and 3. Type 1 g-NETs are typically associated with autoimmune atrophic gastritis and elevated serum gastrin and achlorhydria. The lesions are often multiple in number and are characterized by indolent behavior (metastases in 0–2% of cases) [6,7]. Type 2 is generally detected within multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) type 1 syndrome. They are characterized by hypergastrinemia and high gastric acid secretion conditioned by a gastrinoma. Additionally, type 2 g-NETs have quite indolent behavior but present 12–30% of the risk of distant metastases at diagnosis [8]. Type 3 g-NETs represent the most aggressive subcategory and are not associated with hypergastrinemia, atrophic gastritis, or MEN1 syndrome. Type 3 g-NETs typically occur as a single, sporadic lesion with a larger size and present more aggressive biological behavior compared with types 1 and 2, which is represented by a deeper level of stomach wall invasion, lymph-vascular infiltration, and a higher risk of metastasis at diagnosis [4].
For all these reasons, the European and international guidelines agree on the more aggressive management of type 3 g-NETs. According to the NANETS guidelines, the type 3 subcategory is sufficient for the indication of partial gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy, irrespective of the grade or dimension [9]. The European Neuroendocrine Tumors Society (ENETS) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines keep the possibility of an endoscopic approach for small and superficial lesions [10]. However, both of the latter suggest endoscopic resection without distinguishing among the different gastric types but using only the dimensional criteria for the patient’s selection [11,12].
This systematic review aimed to collect all the available data on type 3 g-NETs to identify real-life managerial experiences and eventually provide a flowchart for management regarding these rare and aggressive diseases.

2. Materials and Methods

On behalf of the NIKE (Neuroendocrine tumors, Innovation in Knowledge and Education) group in Italy, we performed a systematic review of the literature according to Cochrane collaboration and the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) statement methodology [13], using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases (see Supplementary Material, Table S1). Other relevant studies were identified through the references list of included papers. We included all relevant clinical articles (cohort studies, case series, and case reports) written in the English language, with those from inception to 2022 included. We selected only those studies focusing on or containing patients with type 3 g-NETs (defined as sporadic g-NET) not associated with hypergastrinemia or history of autoimmune atrophic gastritis, hypochlorhydria, gastrinomas, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, or MEN-1. Studies were excluded if they were not written in English, did not represent a clinical study (e.g., reviews), or were not related to type 3 gastric NETs. Articles were screened by reading the title and abstract, and the full text of the eligible studies was obtained.
For every selected article, we extracted (through a standardized form) the data regarding year of publication, number of participants, demographic characteristics of patients, clinic-pathological characteristics of gastric NETs, and information concerning disease management and treatments. When available, we also gathered data regarding survival and mortality.
Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. Categorical variables are expressed by the absolute number and percentage. All statistical analyses were performed with Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and MedCalc Statistical Software version 20.211 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium).

3. Results

Among the 556 identified articles in the 21-year period between 2001 and 2022, we selected 31 studies for the final analysis. Figure 1 represents the PRISMA flowchart of the literature research.
Among the selected studies, 7 are case reports, 20 are retrospective cohort studies (9 multicentric), and 4 are prospective cohort studies (3 multicentric). A total of 776 patients with type III g-NETs were included in this systemic review. Their characteristics are reported in Table 1 and Table 2.
The median age of diagnosis was 58 years (range 34–71), and males represented 59.3% of the population. In 21 studies, the origin of the tumor site was predominantly the gastric corpus/fundus (83.3%) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], and prevalent polypoid morphology from endoscopy was identified in 13 out of the 31 studies [15,16,17,20,21,22,23,25,26,28,29,30,31]. A total of 17 out of the 31 studies included tumor depth invasion data, resulting in an invasion that included the submucosa in most cases [15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,28,30,32,34,35,36,37,38]. A total of 26 out of the 31 papers reported dimensional data, and the median size was 16.5 mm (8–62.5 mm) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,23,24,26,28,31,32,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Six out of thirty-one authors reported a cut-off size of >10 mm for low tumor-related death [16,17,18,19,21,39], while 7 out of the 31 papers reported a larger cut-off size of >20 mm for an increased risk of gastric wall infiltration, metastasis at diagnosis, and relapse (p < 0.001) [14,22,23,24,26,43,44]. A total of 3 out of the 31 authors showed a higher risk of gastric wall infiltration (and then lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis) with a cut-off of >17 and >19 mm [30,37,38], while two authors shared a stricter cut-off of <5 mm for sharing an indication of endoscopic management [37,39]. The data on lymphatic and vascular invasion were available in less than 50% of the selected articles. A total of 13 studies reported data on gastric wall infiltration as being related to the patient’s outcome; muscularis propria involvement was associated with a higher risk of lymph node or distant metastasis, irrespective of the size and grading [15,19,20,23,24,26,30,31,32,33,37,43,44]. In particular, Sato et al. described a G1 8 mm lesion with a lymph node metastasis at diagnosis due to muscularis propria infiltration [15], while Min et al. showed no lymph nodes or distant metastases for all type 3 g-NETs (even G3) confined in the submucosa [23].
Grading was defined in 25 studies (n = 648): G1 type 3 g-NETs = 298 (46%), while G2/G3 = 350 (54%) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,33,35,36,37,39,41,43,46], with a mean Ki-67 of 18.2% (reported in 15 out of the 31 studies) [15,16,17,21,22,24,25,26,29,33,36,37,39,41,46]. Lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis were reported in 22 studies, with 27.9% of the patients having lymph node metastasis [14,15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,34,35,36,37,38,42,43,44,46], while 25.2% had distant metastasis (available data in 26 studies) [14,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,44,46]. More than half of the patients with type 3 g-NETs received surgical treatment (total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction). Among the 43.8% of patients that underwent endoscopic management, 6% received subsequent surgical treatment [14,15,16,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,39,41,42,43,46]. A total of 11 studies reported data on disease relapse after radical treatment (47/444 patients), but no homogeneous data could be identified for the site of recurrence (locoregional end/or distant), the size of local recurrences, the time to recurrence from local treatment, and the recurrence grade [18,19,20,23,28,36,37,39,41,44,46]. The number of patients treated with systemic therapy (chemotherapy, somatostin analogs, and radionuclide therapy) totaled 84 according to 13 studies, and chemotherapy was the main resulting systemic treatment received [18,21,22,27,29,37,38,39,41,42,43,44,46].
Eleven of the papers reported survival rate data. Six studies evaluated the 5-year (y) overall survival (OS), which resulted in between 100% and 54.5% (39.5–69.5) [19,23,34,39,41,43].
The highest 5y OS was observed in the studies by Hirasawa et al.: 100% in 63 out of 144 patients treated with endoscopic resection. The sample was entirely composed by G1 and G2 type 3 g-NETs, with no involvement of the submucosa in 88.2% of cases [19]. Additionally, the study by Min et al. reported a high median 5y OS (96%) in a sample composed by G1/2/3 confined to the submucosa in almost 94% of cases. The median size was 15 mm, and 22 out of 32 patients received endoscopic management for type 3 g-NETs [23].
Hanna et al. reported a 5y OS of 81% for a sample composed of G1/2/3 type 3 g-NETs. However, the 5y OS referred to the whole sample for whom 13 out of the 47 patients underwent endoscopic management [39]. Additionally, Panzuto et al. reported a case series of G1/2/3 type 3 g-NETs with a similar 5y OS (76.2%). The median size was 15 mm, and 16 out of 19 of the patients underwent endoscopic resection [41]. The survival reported by Manfredi and Schindl was appreciably lower (5y OS of 63.2% and 54.5%, respectively). Both the authors reported a larger median size, and the case series by Schindl et al. (despite the fact that the grading was not specified) showed a more advanced stage [34,43].
The studies by Jiao and Li YL reported a quite different 3y OS: 29.9% and 75%, respectively [21,22], but the first analysis reported a higher percentage of NET G3 (16/25) and a higher median size (35 mm) compared to the Li YL report and the other previous studies. Furthermore, Endo et al. reported a survival rate of 66% at 53 months follow-up for a sample of G1/2/3 type 3 g-NETs with a higher median size (55 mm) and proliferation index (51%) compared to the studies above [37].
Postelwait et al. reported a 75% 3y-disease-specific survival (DSS). The population was composed of 10 patients, with a median size of 32 mm (3–61), and the grading was not specified. Five of the patients had a stage of ≥T3, and only two patients received endoscopic management [44].
Lastly, Louthan et al. reported the poorest survival (a median of 3 months) for a cohort of seven type 3 g-NET patients. The reason for these findings was that the sample was composed of six (out of the seven) patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, and four of these were G3 [27].

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this systematic review is the first comprehensive analysis of all the studies on type 3 g-NETs from the last 20 years. Among the different subcategories, type 3 represents 15–25% [10] of g-NETs, with an incidence of 6.15 million people [47]. Due to rarity, the lack of a specific conditioning cause, and the natural trend of more aggressive-type behavior, type 3 g-NETs are mostly associated with a poor prognosis [48]. For these reasons, the European and international guidelines agree on more aggressive therapeutic management for all localized stage types 3 g-NETs. An endoscopic approach seems to be suggested only for small and superficial lesions, using only the dimensional criteria for the patient’s selection [10,48]. Chen et al. supported this indication and reported their experience with endoscopic resection in 10 type 3 g-NETs. In this study, management was based on dimensional criteria (the median size of all type 3 g-NETs was almost 16.5 mm, with a range of 8–30 mm) and the infiltration depth of the gastric wall (none exceed the submucosal layer) [30].
According to the results of our analysis, size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration seem to be the most important decision points in managerial choices and are the most relevant factors that impact the prognosis of type 3 g-NET patients.
When considering only the dimensional criteria, most of the reported studies agree on a quite long disease-free survival for patients with <10 mm lesions treated with endoscopic resection.
When adding gastric wall infiltration to the dimensional parameters, some of the authors argue about the indication of endoscopic management for lesions of up to 20 mm in diameter, irrespective of the grade, as long as the type 3 NET result is confined within the submucosal area. Involvement beyond the submucosa is generally (but not always) related to larger lesions and might, indeed, be associated with a risk of lymph-vascular infiltration, positive margins after endoscopic dissection, lymph node positivity, and metastatic disease at staging. Obviously, larger lesions at diagnosis and greater gastric wall involvement might be related to higher-grade lesions due to more aggressive behavior, but according to our observations, surgical management should be discussed case by case. In any case, while endoscopic management may be more easily accepted by the scientific community for small G1/2 type 3 g-NETs confined within the submucosa, as regards a partial/total gastrectomy, for NETs G3 with the same characteristics, it may be more difficult. NETs G3 are indeed the subcategory with the worst prognosis among the well-differentiated NENs, and physicians may not be so confident about their biological behavior. However, we believe that the impact of gastrectomy on patients’ quality of life and the risk of second tumors from the surgery site represent issues that should be well-considered in the therapeutical planning for type 3 g-NETs.
According to the proliferation index, Li YL et al. suggested endoscopic treatment only for patients with <10% G2 g-NETs, while Hirasawa et al. directly proposed surgery for all G2 g-NET cases. However, these cut-offs were not confirmed by the other studies, in which, in case of <17 mm size lesions confined within the submucosa, nor local or distant relapse, neither metastatic disease at diagnosis have been reported, irrespective of the grade.
Based on our observations, the dimensional criteria should be the first parameter to consider after the endoscopic biopsy of a type 3 g-NET and adequate staging (according to the grade). Correlating the outcomes and g-NET features reported by the selected studies, we measured a cut-off of 17 mm in diameter from the median of the tumor sizes observed.
The second parameter that we considered was the state of gastric wall infiltration. From the results of our analysis, muscularis propria infiltration (or beyond) was directly related to lymph-vascular infiltration, lymph nodes, and distant metastases. Although some studies showed a correlation of 67–100% between muscularis propria infiltration risk and a diameter of >20 mm, some others reported cases of <20 mm NETs with a deeper infiltration than expected. An example is the case by Sato et al., who reported an 8 mm G1 g-NET with a muscle layer adhesion; further radical surgery after the endoscopic dissection showed two lymph nodal metastases.
Therefore, for small lesions, the assessment of muscularis propria infiltration may contribute to an indication for surgery. Conversely, due to the higher correlation with lymph vascular infiltration, lymph nodes, and distant metastases, a size of ≥17 mm may be sufficient to indicate surgery if a metastatic disease has been excluded at the staging.
In the case of metastatic disease, indications will follow international guidelines, which are based on the grade, the radiologic characteristics of the disease, the tumor burden, and the clinical features of the patients.
According to these observations, we reported a hypothetical flowchart for management staff in the case of an endoscopic detection of a type 3 g-NET based on T stage (size and gastric wall infiltration) and grade (Figure 2).
Our systematic review clearly presents some limitations that prevent us from adopting this flowchart without prospective validation. On the one hand, the selected studies belong to different eras in terms of NEN classification, knowledge of NEN features, which have been improved over the years, and an awareness of the importance of centralizing these rare diseases in referral centers. On the other, the sample analyzed is also heterogeneous in terms of race, surgery approach (total vs. partial gastrectomy), and time of follow-up. However, the strength of the present study is represented by the sample size, which is uncommon for these rare diseases, the strict selection criteria of the studies and the cases within them, and the result of a shareable management flowchart that comes from real-life experiences.

5. Conclusions

According to the present systematic review on type 3 g-NETs, real-life managerial experiences seem to be influenced by size, grading, and gastric wall infiltration, which all have a certain prognostic impact on the outcomes of these patients. Prospective analyses are needed to validate the usefulness of our management flowchart, which might aid the standardization of the therapeutic approach to type 3 g-NET patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15082202/s1, Table S1. Search strings used for performing the systematic review of the literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; methodology, A.R., F.S., A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; validation A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; resources and data curation, A.R., V.D.V., A.L. (Alessia Liccardi), M.R., F.S., A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R., V.D.V., A.L. (Alessia Liccardi), M.R. and F.S.; writing—review and editing, A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; visualization, A.L. (Alice Laffi) and A.G.A.L.; supervision, A.L. (Alice Laffi), A.G.A.L., A.C. and A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all the Collaborators of the NIKE (Neuroendocrine tumors, Innovation in Knowledge and Education) Group: I. Aini, M. Albertelli, Y. Alessi, B. Altieri, S. Antonini, L. Barrea, E. Benevento, F. Birtolo, F. Campolo, G. Cannavale, C. Cantone, S. Carra, R. Centello, A. Cozzolino, F. De Cicco, G. Fanciulli, B. Fazzalari, T. Feola, F. Ferraù, S. Gay, E. Giannetta, F. Grillo, E. Grossrubatscher, E. Guadagno, V. Guarnotta, I. Hasballa, A.M. Isidori, P. Malandrino, R. Mazzilli, E. Messina, N. Mikovic, R. Minotta, R. Modica, S. Molfetta, G. Muscogiuri, C. Pandozzi, G. Pugliese, G. Puliani, R.M. Ruggeri, F. Russo, A. Salvia, M.G. Tarsitano, L. Verde, A. Veresani, C. Vetrani, G. Vitale, V. Vito, V. Zamponi, I. Zanata. This work was partially supported by “Ricerca Corrente” funding from Italian Ministry of Health to IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fraenkel, M.; Kim, M.K.; Faggiano, A.; Valk, G.D. Epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2012, 26, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Scherubl, H.; Cadiot, G.; Jensen, R.T.; Rosch, T.; Stolzel, U.; Kloppel, G. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach (gastric carcinoids) are on the rise: Small tumors, small problems? Endoscopy 2010, 42, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nagtegaal, I.D.; Odze, R.D.; Klimstra, D.; Paradis, V.; Rugge, M.; Schirmacher, P.; Washington, K.M.; Carneiro, F.; Cree, I.A.; The WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020, 76, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Rindi, G.; Luinetti, O.; Cornaggia, M.; Capella, C.; Solcia, E. Three subtypes of gastric argyrophil carcinoid and the gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma: A clinicopathologic study. Gastroenterology 1993, 104, 994–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Burkitt, M.D.; Pritchard, D.M. Review article: Pathogenesis and management of gastric carcinoid tumours. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006, 24, 1305–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Thomas, D.; Tsolakis, A.V.; Grozinsky-Glasberg, S.; Fraenkel, M.; Alexandraki, K.; Sougioultzis, S.; Gross, D.J.; Kaltsas, G. Long-term follow-up of a large series of patients with type 1 gastric carcinoid tumors: Data from a multicenter study. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2013, 168, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Merola, E.; Sbrozzi-Vanni, A.; Panzuto, F.; D’Ambra, G.; Di Giulio, E.; Pilozzi, E.; Capurso, G.; Lahner, E.; Bordi, C.; Annibale, B.; et al. Type I gastric carcinoids: A prospective study on endoscopic management and recurrence rate. Neuroendocrinology 2012, 95, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sato, Y.; Hashimoto, S.; Mizuno, K.; Takeuchi, M.; Terai, S. Management of gastric and duodenal neuroendocrine tumors. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 6817–6828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kunz, P.L.; Reidy-Lagunes, D.; Anthony, L.B.; Bertino, E.M.; Brendtro, K.; Chan, J.A.; Chen, H.; Jensen, R.T.; Kim, M.K.; Klimstra, D.S.; et al. Consensus guidelines for the management and treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. Pancreas 2013, 42, 557–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Delle Fave, G.; O’Toole, D.; Sundin, A.; Taal, B.; Ferolla, P.; Ramage, J.K.; Ferone, D.G.; Ito, T.H.; Weber, W.I.; Zheng-Pei, Z.; et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for Gastroduodenal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 2016, 103, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Saund, M.S.; Al Natour, R.H.; Sharma, A.M.; Huang, Q.; Boosalis, V.A.; Gold, J.S. Tumor size and depth predict rate of lymph node metastasis and utilization of lymph node sampling in surgically managed gastric carcinoids. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 18, 2826–2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Delle Fave, G.; Kwekkeboom, D.J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Rindi, G.; Kos-Kudla, B.; Knigge, U.; Sasano, H.; Tomassetti, P.; Salazar, R.; Ruszniewski, P. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with gastroduodenal neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 2012, 95, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Kurtulan, O.; Turhan, N.; Gedikoglu, G.; Akyol, A.; Sokmensuer, C. Defining prognostic parameters of well-differentiated gastric neuroendocrine tumors based on metastatic potential: A two-center experience. Acta Gastroenterol. Belg. 2022, 85, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sato, A.; Sato, Y.; Oka, H.; Honda, Y.; Terai, S. Small G1 type III gastric neuroendocrine cell tumor showing scirrhous invasion and lymph node metastasis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2022, 95, 192–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhu, C.; Kawachi, H.; Lu, X. A rare gastric lesion: Diminutive, well-differentiated, Grade 3, type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumor with extremely high ki-67 index removed en bloc under endoscopy. Gastric Cancer 2022, 25, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boeriu, A.; Dobru, D.; Fofiu, C.; Brusnic, O.; Onisor, D.; Mocan, S. Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms and precursor lesions: Case reports and literature review. Medicine 2022, 101, e28550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Exarchou, K.; Kamieniarz, L.; Tsoli, M.; Victor, A.; Oleinikov, K.; Khan, M.S.; Srirajaskanthan, R.; Mandair, D.; Grozinsky-Glasberg, S.; Kaltsas, G.; et al. Is local excision sufficient in selected grade 1 or 2 type III gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms? Endocrine 2021, 74, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hirasawa, T.; Yamamoto, N.; Sano, T. Is endoscopic resection appropriate for type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumors? Retrospective multicenter study. Dig. Endosc. 2021, 33, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Trinh, V.Q.; Shi, C.; Ma, C. Gastric neuroendocrine tumours from long-term proton pump inhibitor users are indolent tumours with good prognosis. Histopathology 2020, 77, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Jiao, X.; Wang, Z.; Peng, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, L. Effects of tumor types on treatment strategy formulation and prognostic evaluation of gastric neuroendocrine tumors. Future Oncol. 2020, 16, 2197–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.L.; Qiu, X.D.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Xu, J.M.; Wang, C.; Qi, Z.-R.; Luo, J.; Tan, H.-Y. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of 77 cases with type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumours. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 12, 1416–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Min, B.H.; Hong, M.; Lee, J.H.; Rhee, P.L.; Sohn, T.S.; Kim, S.; Kim, K.; Kim, J.J. Clinicopathological features and outcome of type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumours. Br. J. Surg. 2018, 105, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vanoli, A.; La Rosa, S.; Miceli, E.; Klersy, C.; Maragliano, R.; Capuano, F.; Persichella, A.; Martino, M.; Inzani, F.; Luinetti, O.; et al. Prognostic Evaluations Tailored to Specific Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Analysis Of 200 Cases with Extended Follow-Up. Neuroendocrinology 2018, 107, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kawasaki, K.; Nakamura, S.; Sugai, T.; Matsumoto, T. Type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumor with unique endoscopic features. Dig. Liver Dis. 2016, 48, 1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cavallaro, A.; Zanghi, A.; Cavallaro, M.; Lo Menzo, E.; Di Carlo, I.; Di Vita, M.; Cardì, F.; Piccolo, G.; Di Mattia, P.; Cappellani, A. The role of 68-Ga-DOTATOC CT-PET in surgical tactic for gastric neuroendocrine tumors treatment: Our experience: A case report. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12 (Suppl. 1), S225–S231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Louthan, O. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the stomach. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2014, 158, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Kwon, Y.H.; Jeon, S.W.; Kim, G.H.; Kim, J.I.; Chung, I.K.; Jee, S.R.; Kim, H.U.; Seo, G.S.; Baik, G.H.; Choi, K.D.; et al. Long-term follow up of endoscopic resection for type 3 gastric, N.E.T. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 8703–8708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bariani, G.M.; Carvalheira, J.B.; Riechelmann, R.P. Antitumor effect of everolimus in a patient with type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumor. Onkologie 2013, 36, 502–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, W.F.; Zhou, P.H.; Li, Q.L.; Xu, M.D.; Yao, L.Q. Clinical impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neuroendocrine tumors: A retrospective study from mainland China. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 869769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Li, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Chen, W.F.; Xu, M.D.; Zhong, Y.S.; Ma, L.L.; Qin, W.-Z.; Hu, J.-W.; Cai, M.-Y.; Yao, L.-Q.; et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for foregut neuroendocrine tumors: An initial study. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 5799–5806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kim, B.S.; Oh, S.T.; Yook, J.H.; Kim, K.C.; Kim, M.G.; Jeong, J.W.; Kim, B.S. Typical carcinoids and neuroendocrine carcinomas of the stomach: Differing clinical courses and prognoses. Am. J. Surg. 2010, 200, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Safatle-Ribeiro, A.V.; Ribeiro, U., Jr.; Corbett, C.E.; Iriya, K.; Kobata, C.H.; Sakai, P.; Yagi, O.K.; Pinto, P.E., Jr.; Zilberstein, B.; Gama-Rodrigues, J. Prognostic value of immunohistochemistry in gastric neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007, 19, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Schindl, M.; Kaserer, K.; Niederle, B. Treatment of gastric neuroendocrine tumors: The necessity of a type-adapted treatment. Arch. Surg. 2001, 136, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Sekar, A.; Vaiphei, K. Clinical and pathological profile of gastric neuroendocrine tumors. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2022, 65, 551–557. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, H.E.; Mounajjed, T.; Erickson, L.A.; Wu, T.T. Sporadic Gastric Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors Have a Higher Ki-67 Proliferative Index. Endocr. Pathol. 2016, 27, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Endo, S.; Dousei, T.; Yoshikawa, Y.; Hatanaka, N.; Taniyama, K.; Yamauchi, A.; Kamiike, W.; Nishijima, J. Gastric neuroendocrine tumors in our institutions according to the WHO 2010 classification. Int. Surg. 2012, 97, 335–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Borch, K.; Ahren, B.; Ahlman, H.; Falkmer, S.; Granerus, G.; Grimelius, L. Gastric carcinoids: Biologic behavior and prognosis after differentiated treatment in relation to type. Ann. Surg. 2005, 242, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hanna, A.; Kim-Kiselak, C.; Tang, R.; Metz, D.C.; Yang, Z.; DeMatteo, R.; Fraker, D.L.; Roses, R.E. Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: Reappraisal of Type in Predicting Outcome. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 8838–8846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ellis, V.M.; Walmsley, R.N. A comparison of plasma magnesium values in patients with acute myocardial infarction and patients with chest pain due to other causes. Med. J. Aust. 1988, 148, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Panzuto, F.; Campana, D.; Massironi, S.; Faggiano, A.; Rinzivillo, M.; Lamberti, G.; Sciola, V.; Lahner, E.; Manuzzi, L.; Colao, A.; et al. Tumour type and size are prognostic factors in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia: A multicentre retrospective study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2019, 51, 1456–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Crown, A.; Kennecke, H.; Kozarek, R.; Lopez-Aguiar, A.G.; Dillhoff, M.; Beal, E.W.; Poultsides, G.A.; Makris, E.; Idrees, K.; Smith, P.M.; et al. Gastric carcinoids: Does type of surgery or tumor affect survival? Am. J. Surg. 2019, 217, 937–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Manfredi, S.; Walter, T.; Baudin, E.; Coriat, R.; Ruszniewski, P.; Lecomte, T.; Laurenty, A.-P.; Goichot, B.; Rohmer, V.; Roquin, G.; et al. Management of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours in a large French national cohort (GTE). Endocrine 2017, 57, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Postlewait, L.M.; Baptiste, G.G.; Ethun, C.G.; Le, N.; Cardona, K.; Russell, M.C.; Willingham, F.F.; Kooby, D.A.; Staley, C.A.; Maithel, S.K. A 15-year experience with gastric neuroendocrine tumors: Does type make a difference? J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 114, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Improving communications can prevent malpractice. Indiana Med. 1990, 83, 272–273.
  46. Schmidt, D.; Wiedenmann, B. Extremely Long Survival under Combined Immunotherapy in a Metastatic Functional Neuroendocrine Neoplasia Patient. Neuroendocrinology 2018, 106, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hu, P.; Bai, J.; Liu, M.; Xue, J.; Chen, T.; Li, R.; Kuai, X.; Zhao, H.; Li, X.; Tian, Y.; et al. Trends of incidence and prognosis of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: A study based on SEER and our multicenter research. Gastric Cancer 2020, 23, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Koseoglu, H.; Duzenli, T.; Sezikli, M. Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: A review. World J. Clin. Cases 2021, 9, 7973–7985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 02202 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the literature search for the systematic review, in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the literature search for the systematic review, in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
Cancers 15 02202 g001
Cancers 15 02202 g002 550
Figure 2. Flowchart management in the case of endoscopic type 3 g-NET detection. CT: computer tomography, Ga: gallium, PET: Positron Emission Tomography, FDG: fluorodeoxyglucose, G: grade, R0: absence of microscopic residual of disease, N0: no positive lymph nodes at the radiologic imaging, M0: no distant metastasis at the radiologic imaging, N1: positive lymph nodes at the radiologic imaging, M1: distant metastasis, R1: microscopic residual of disease.
Figure 2. Flowchart management in the case of endoscopic type 3 g-NET detection. CT: computer tomography, Ga: gallium, PET: Positron Emission Tomography, FDG: fluorodeoxyglucose, G: grade, R0: absence of microscopic residual of disease, N0: no positive lymph nodes at the radiologic imaging, M0: no distant metastasis at the radiologic imaging, N1: positive lymph nodes at the radiologic imaging, M1: distant metastasis, R1: microscopic residual of disease.
Cancers 15 02202 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic, pathological, and staging characteristics of patients with type 3 g-NETs.
Table 1. Demographic, pathological, and staging characteristics of patients with type 3 g-NETs.
YearFirst AuthorPatients (n)Sex
(M = Male;
F= Female)		Mean Age (y)Site
(A = Antrum; C = Corpus;
F = Fundus)		Endoscopic Appearance
(P = Polyp;
U = Ulcer)		Depth of Invasion
(M = Mucosa; MP = Muscularis Propria;
S = Serosa;
SM = Submucosa; SS= Subserosa)		Gradingki-67 (%)Stage TStage NStage MMedian Size (mm)
2022Sekar A.2316M-7F47.4NANA1MP-2S-20 NAG1 (n = 11),
G2 (n = 5),
G3 (n = 7)		NANAN1 (n = 9)M1 (n = 6)NA
2022Kurtulan O.1410M-4F64.5NANANAG2 (n = 3),
G3 (n = 11)		NAT3-4 (n = 14)N1 (n = 9)M1 (n = 5)62.5
2022Sato A.1F42CP1SMG12T1N1M08
2022Zhu C.1M34CP1MG380T1N0M04
2022Boeriu A.1M56APNAG25T2NAM120
2021Hanna A.4720M-27F56.6NANANAG1 (n = 22), G2/3 (n = 25)16T1 (n = 29), T2 (n = 18)NANA10
2021Exarchou K.4524M-21F563A-36C-6FNANAG1 (n = 22), G2/3 (n = 22)
NA (n = 1)		NANANANA12
2021Hirasawa T.14488M-56F6220A-81C-43FNA13 M-114SM-11 MM-5 SS-1 SG1 (n = 90), G2 (n = 54)NAT1 (n = 127), T2 (n = 11),
T3 (n=5),
T4 (n=1)		N1 (n = 15)NA8
2020Trinh V.Q.6633 M-33F606A-60C/F42P-6U-18 others23 M-31 SM-5 MP-1 SS-6 SG1 (n = 34),
G2 (n = 28), G3 (n = 4)		NAT1 (n = 38),
T2 (n = 21),
T3 (n = 1),
T4 (n = 6)		N1 (n = 12)M1 (n = 4)16
2020Jiao X.2520M-5F603A-3C-10F-9 others14P-6U-2 M/SM-10 MP/S-15 NAG1 (n = 2),
G2 (n = 7),
G3 (n = 16)		34T1 (n = 2), T2 (n = 4),
T3 (n = 8)
NA (n = 11)		N1 (n = 4)M1 (n = 13)35
2020Li Y.L.7734M-43F483A-64C/F-10 others45P-17U22M/SM-5 MP-7 beyond MPG1 (n = 37),
G2 (n = 31),
G3 (n = 9)		3NAN1 (n = 10)M1 (n = 24)15
2019Panzuto F.196M-13F59NANANAG1 (n = 8),
G2 (n = 10),
G3 (n = 1)		3NANAM1 (n = 7)15
2018Crown A.37NANANANANANANAT1 (n = 12),
T2 (n = 14),
T3 (n = 4),
NA (n = 7)		N1 (n = 9)M1 (n = 5)28
2018Min B.H.3223M-9F527A-25C/F32P31M/SM-1MPG1 (n = 25),
G2 (n = 5),
G3 (n = 2)		NANAN1 (n = 2)M1 (n = 1)9.5
2018Vanoli A.3424M-10F592A-32C/FNA13SM-21MPG1 (n = 15),
G2 (n = 10),
G3 (n = 9)		5% (median G2)
39% (median G3)		NAN1 (n = 11)M1 (n = 10)20
2017Manfredi S.5233M-19F58NANANAG1 (n = 10),
G2 (n = 26), NA (n = 16)		NANAN1 (n = 9)M1 (n = 27)20
2017Schmidt D.1M68NANANAG25T4N1M1NA
2016Kawasaki K.1M69CPSMG24,8T1N0M0NA
2016Lee H.E.2211M-11F6.2NANA13M/SM-2MP-7 SS/SG1 (n = 3),
G2 (n = 15),
G3 (n = 4)		13T1 (n = 13), T2 (n = 2),
T3 (n = 6), T4 (n = 1)		N1 (n = 7)M1 (n = 3)23
2016Postlewait L.M.105M-5F58.8NANANANANAT1 (n = 2), T2 (n = 1),
T3 (n = 2), T4 (n = 3)
NA (n = 2)		N1 (n = 5)M1 (n = 4)32
2014Cavallaro A.1M66CSMNAG1<2%T2N1M08
2014Louthan O.75M-2F664F-3CNANAG2 (n = 3),
G3 (n = 4)		NANAN1 (n = 2)M1 (n = 6)NA
2013Kwon Y.H.5028M-22F58.64A-38C-8F-7 other48P49M/SM-1MPNANAT1 (n = 49), T2 (n = 1)N0 (n = 50)M0 (n = 50)≤10 (n = 33)
>10 (n = 17)
2013Bariani G.M.1M64CUNAG11NANAM1NA
2012Chen W.103M-7F53.51A-7C-1F-1 other1U-9 other10SMG1 (n = 7),
G2 (n = 3)		NANANANA16.5
2012Endo S.85M-3F67NANA1M-3SM-3S-2NAG1 (n = 3), G2 (n = 2), G3 (n = 3)3.5Tis (n = 1), T1 (n = 2),
T2 (n = 2), T3 (n = 3)		N1 (n = 2)M1 (n = 1)20
2012Li Q.L.83M-5F565C-1A-1F-1 other8 SMNAG1 (n = 6),
G2 (n = 2)		NANANAM016.5
2010Kim B.S.1610M-6F51.18F-6C-2ANA13SM-1MP-1NANANANANANA11.7
2007Safatle-Ribeiro A.V.84M-4F60.55C-3ANANAG2 (n = 1),
G3 (n = 7)		45NANAM1 (n = 5)NA
2005Borch K.41M-3F71NANA2MP-2SNANAT2 (n = 2), T4 (n = 2)N0 (n = 4)M1 (n = 3)19
2001Schindl M.11NANA5A-6C/FNA2M/SM-2MP-2 SS/SNANAT1 (n = 2), T2 (n = 2),
T4 (n = 7)		N1 (n = 9)M1 (n = 4)41.6
NA: not available, G: grade.
Table
Table 2. Treatment approaches, follow-up, and survival data of patients with type 3 g-NETs.
Table 2. Treatment approaches, follow-up, and survival data of patients with type 3 g-NETs.
YearFirst AuthorPatients (n)Local Treatment
(E = Endoscopy;
S = Surgery)		Systemic Treatment
(C = Chemotherapy;
R = Radionuclide Therapy;
S = Somatostatin Analogues)		Median Follow-Up (Months)Relapse
(D = Distant;
L = Local;
LR = Loco-Regional)		Site of Distant RelapseSurvivalDeceased due to NET
2022Sekar A.23NANANANANANANA
2022Kurtulan O.1414SNANANANANANA
2022Sato A.1E-SNANANANANANA
2022Zhu C.1ENo12NoNoNANA
2022Boeriu A.1NoNANANANANANA
2021Hanna A.4713E-26S-8NANA62.711LR/DNA5y-OS 81%7
2021Exarchou K.4516E-26S-3NANA562LiverNA0
2021Hirasawa T.14463E (15 with subsequent S)-81SNo32 (endoscopic group)
51 (surgery group)		7D (2 in endoscopic group, 5 in surgery group)Liver (n = 6),
bone (n = 2),
LN (n = 1)		OS 100% (endoscopic group)
OS 91.8% (surgery group)		5
2020Trinh V.Q.66NANA495L-3DNANA3
2020Jiao X.252E-11S-12NA2S-14C-9NANANANA3y-OS 29.9%NA
2020Li Y.L.7733E-17S-27NA6S-21C-50NA35NANA3y-TSS 75%NA
2019Panzuto F.196E-9S-4NA3S-2R-14NA243NA5y-OS 75%2
2018Crown A.378E-29S1C-36NANANANANANA
2018Min B.H.3222E-10S1C-31NA591LR-1DLiver (n = 1)5y-OS 96%1
2018Vanoli A.348E-26SNA93NANANA13
2017Manfredi S.5215E-17S-20NA3S-2C-47NA24NANA5y-OS 63.2%NA
2017Schmidt D.1SS-R-C79L-DLiver, bone, LNNANo
2016Kawasaki K.1ENoNANANANANA
2016Lee H.E.22NANA141LR-3DLiver (n = 3),
omentum (n = 1)		NA1
2016Postlewait L.M.102E-8SNA30.71LR-1DLiver3y-TSS 75%2
2014Cavallaro A.1SNoNANANANA
2014Louthan O.71S3S-3C-1NA46.8NANAMedian OS 3 months6
2013Kwon Y.H.5050E-39S (previous endosocpic treatment)No464NANA3
2013Bariani G.M.1NoS-C34NANANAYes
2012Chen W.1010E-1S (previous endoscopic treatment)No27.5NoNAOS 100%No
2012Endo S.81E-6S-1NA3C-5 NA42.51Liver3.5 ys survival 87.5%1
2012Li Q.L.88E-1S (previous endoscopic treatment)No27NoNANA
2010Kim B.S.167E-7S-2NANA68NoNAOS 100%No
2007Safatle-Ribeiro A.V.85S-3NANA12NANAOS 28.6%5
2005Borch K.44S4C95NANANA1
2001Schindl M.112E-4SNo19.11NA5y-OS estimation 54.5%7
LN, lymphnodes; NA, not available; OS, overall survival; TSS, tumor-specific survival; ys, years.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laffi, A.; Lania, A.G.A.; Ragni, A.; Di Vito, V.; Liccardi, A.; Rubino, M.; Sesti, F.; Colao, A.; Faggiano, A.; on behalf of the NIKE Group. Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs. Cancers 2023, 15, 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082202

AMA Style

Laffi A, Lania AGA, Ragni A, Di Vito V, Liccardi A, Rubino M, Sesti F, Colao A, Faggiano A, on behalf of the NIKE Group. Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs. Cancers. 2023; 15(8):2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laffi, Alice, Andrea Gerardo Antonio Lania, Alberto Ragni, Valentina Di Vito, Alessia Liccardi, Manila Rubino, Franz Sesti, Annamaria Colao, Antongiulio Faggiano, and on behalf of the NIKE Group. 2023. "Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs" Cancers 15, no. 8: 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082202

APA Style

Laffi, A., Lania, A. G. A., Ragni, A., Di Vito, V., Liccardi, A., Rubino, M., Sesti, F., Colao, A., Faggiano, A., & on behalf of the NIKE Group. (2023). Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs. Cancers, 15(8), 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082202

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop