Search

Despite efforts from various endoscopy societies, reporting in the field of endoscopy remains extremely heterogeneous. Harmonisation of clinical practice in endoscopy has been highlighted by application of many clinical practice guidelines and standards pertaining to the endoscopic procedures and reporting are underlined. The aim of the proposed "standardised reporting" is to (1) facilitate recognition of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) on initial endoscopy, (2) to enable interdisciplinary decision making for treatment by a multidisciplinary team, (3) to provide a basis for a standardised endoscopic follow-up which allows detection of recurrence or progression reliably, (4) to make endoscopic reports on NEN comparable between different units, and (5) to allow research collaboration between NEN centres in terms of consistency of their endoscopic data. The ultimate goal is to improve disease management, patient outcome and reduce the diagnostic burden on the side of the patient by ensuring the highest possible diagnostic accuracy and validity of endoscopic exams and possibly interventions.

Unmet medical needs are not infrequent in oncology, and these needs are usually of higher magnitude in rare cancers. The field of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has evolved rapidly during the last decade, and, currently, a new WHO classification is being implemented and several treatment options are available in the metastatic setting after the results of prospective phase III clinical trials. However, several questions are still unanswered, and decisions in our daily clinical practice should be made with limited evidence. In the 2016 meeting of the advisory board of the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), the main unmet medical needs in the metastatic NENs setting were deeply discussed, and several proposals to try to solve them are presented in this article, including biomarkers, imaging, and therapy.

Unmet medical needs are not infrequent in oncology, and these needs are usually of higher magnitude in rare cancers. The field of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has evolved rapidly during the last decade, and, currently, a new WHO classification is being implemented and several treatment options are available in the metastatic setting after the results of prospective phase III clinical trials. However, several questions are still unanswered, and decisions in our daily clinical practice should be made with limited evidence. In the 2016 meeting of the advisory board of the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), the main unmet medical needs in the metastatic NENs setting were deeply discussed, and several proposals to try to solve them are presented in this article, including biomarkers, imaging, and therapy.

Only advances that occurred from 2011–2014 that either strengthen the previous 2011 guidelines [1;2] or lead to changes or additional guidelines are reviewed here. Advances and modifications in the treatment of advanced metastatic disease is only briefly dealt with here as it is covered in a separate chapter, similar to the 2011 guideline format [3]. The format used here is the same as used in the 2011 guidelines with page references to the appropriate section inserted [1;2] and this document is meant as a supplement to these guidelines and does not reiterate all of the points made in the previous guidelines, only changes, supporting findings or modifications of the 2011 guidelines are thus covered here. As in the previous F-p-NET guidelines [1], the F-p-NETs will be considered in three groups: the more frequent gastrinomas and insulinomas considered independently and all the rare functional p-NETs (RFTs) considered together and as a separate category (Annex 1 and Table 1). Table 1 Functional Pancreatic endocrine tumors [F-p-NET] syndromes

Cholecystokinin (CCK) and the structurally related peptide, gastrin, have numerous effects on tissues in the central nervous system and gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies show these effect are mediated by a CCKA and CCKB receptor. Knowledge of the physiological role and role of CCKB receptors in pathologic processes has been particularly limited by the availability of selective, potent receptor antagonists. Recently, new members of five different classes of non-peptide CCKB receptor antagonists are reported and are reviewed briefly. these include compounds isolated from Streptomyces (tetronothiodin, virginiamycin analogues), ureido-acetamide analogues (RP 69758, RP 72540, RP 73870), newer benzodiazepine analogues (L-368,935, L-740,093, YM022), pyrazolidimine analogues (LY 262,691) and glutamic acid analogues (CR2194). Many of these compounds have greater than 1000-fold selectivity for the CCKB over the CCKA receptor and some have greater than 10,000-fold selectivity. The pharmacology and effects of CCKB receptor antagonists on gastric acid secretion is briefly reviewed. Furthermore, the possible clinical usefulness of CCKB receptor antagonists in treating disorders of gastric acid secretion, in inhibiting the trophic effects of gastrin and in other clinical conditions is briefly discussed.

Pancreatic endocrine tumors (p-NETs) include both pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) associated with a functional syndrome (functional p-NETs) or those associated with no distinct clinical syndrome (non-functional p-NETs) [1,2,3,4]. Non-functional p-NETs frequently secrete pancreatic polypeptide, chromogranin A, neuron-specific enolase, human chorionic gonadotrophin subunits, calcitonin, neurotensin or other peptides, but they do not usually produce specific symptoms and thus are considered clinically to be non-functional tumors [2,3,5,6,7]. Only the functional p-NETs will be considered in this section. The two most common functional p-NETs (gastrinomas, insulinomas) are considered separately, whereas the other well-described and possible rare functional p-NETs are considered together as a group called rare functional p-NETs (RFTs) (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4]. Table 1 Functional pancreatic endocrine tumor (PET) syndromes Gastrinomas are neuroendocrine neoplasms, usually located in the duodenum or pancreas, that secrete gastrin and cause a clinical syndrome known as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES). ZES is characterized by gastric acid hypersecretion resulting in severe peptic disease (peptic ulcer disease (PUD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)) [8,9,10]. In this section, ZES due to both duodenal and pancreatic gastrinomas will be covered together because clinically they are similar [8,10]. Specific points related to gastrinomas associated with the genetic syndrome of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) (25% of cases) will also be mentioned [11,12]. Insulinomas are neuroendocrine neoplasms located in the pancreas that secrete insulin, which causes a distinct syndrome characterized by symptoms due to hypoglycemia [2,13,14,15]. The symptoms are typically associated with fasting and the majority of patients have symptoms secondary to hypoglycemic central nervous system (CNS) effects (headaches, confusion, visual disturbances, etc.) or due to catecholamine excess secondary to hypoglycemia (sweating, tremor, palpitations, etc.) [2,3,13,14,15]. RFTs can occur in the pancreas or in other locations (VIPomas, somatostatinomas, GRHomas, ACTHomas, p-NETs causing carcinoid syndrome or hypercalcemia (PTHrp-omas)) (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4,5,7]. Each of the established RFT syndromes is associated with a distinct clinical syndrome reflecting the actions of the ectopically secreted hormone. Other RFTs are listed as causing a possible specific syndrome either because there are too few cases or there is disagreement about whether the described features are actually a distinct syndrome (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4,5,7].

It is fitting that the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES) be included in the Lester Dragstedt Symposium because Dr. Dragstedt had a long-time interest in this disease, having been one of the five discussants of the original article and subsequently reporting with Dr. Oberhelman on nine cases. The approach to therapy of ZES has been controversial from the beginning, and a number of controversies remain. In this article, four different controversies are analyzed from the prospective of the past (Zollinger-Dragstedt era, 1955-1980), present and what may happen in the future in light of recent results. Specifically analyzed are: 1) the role of gastric surgery in the management; 2) whether gastrinoma removal without aggressive resection in patients with ZES without MEN-I is the preferred surgical therapy; 3) whether patients with MEN-I should undergo routine surgical exploration; and 4) whether most gastrinomas will be localized preoperatively. An analysis of recent advances suggests there may be marked changes in the future from our current and our past approaches. Images Figure 2