Search

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways are care plans established to describe essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They translate (inter)national guidelines into local applicable protocols and clinical practice. The purpose of this article is to establish a multidisciplinary integrated care pathway for specialists and allied health care professionals in caring for individuals with von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) disease. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi consensus-making process, a multidisciplinary panel from 5 Dutch University Medical Centers produced an integrated care pathway relating to the provision of care for patients with VHL by medical specialists, specialized nurses, and associated health care professionals. Patient representatives cocreated the pathway and contributed quality criteria from the patients' perspective. RESULTS: The panel agreed on recommendations for the optimal quality of care for individuals with a VHL gene mutation. These items were the starting point for the development of a patient care pathway. With international medical guidelines addressing the different VHL-related disorders, this article presents a patient care pathway as a flowchart that can be incorporated into VHL expertise clinics or nonacademic treatment clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists (internists, urologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, geneticists, medical oncologists, neurologists, gastroenterologists, pediatricians, and ear-nose-throat specialists) together with specialized nurses play a vital role alongside health care professionals in providing care to people affected by VHL and their families. This article presents a set of consensus recommendations, supported by organ-specific guidelines, for the roles of these practitioners in order to provide optimal VHL care. This care pathway can form the basis for the development of comprehensive, integrated pathways for multiple neoplasia syndromes.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings on the management of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Methods: All newly referred gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP)-NEN patients discussed from 1 April to 1 October 2017 in the MDT of seven European expert centres were prospectively included. The impact on patients' management was defined as a change in diagnosis, grade, stage or treatment. Results: A total of 292 patients were included, mainly small intestinal (siNENs) (32%) and pancreatic NENs (28%), with distant metastases in 51%. Patients had received prior surgery in 43% of cases and prior medical treatment in 32%. A significant change occurred in 61% of NENs: 7% changes in diagnosis, 8% in grade and 16% in stage. The MDT recommended a new treatment for 51% of patients, mainly surgery (9%) or somatostatin analogues (20%). A significant change was most frequently observed in patients with Stage IV disease (hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9–6.9 vs. Stage I) and G2 NENs (vs. G1, HR 2.1 95% CI: 1.2–3.8). Conclusion: NEN-dedicated MDT discussion in expert centres yields significant management changes in over 60% of patients and thus represents the gold standard for the management of these patients.

Background: In multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) have a high prevalence and represent the main cause of death. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently used conventional pancreatic imaging techniques and the added value of fine needle aspirations (FNAs). Methods: Patients who had at least one imaging study were included from the population-based MEN1 database of the DutchMEN Study Group from 1990 to 2017. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), FNA, and surgical resection specimens were obtained. The first MRI, CT, or EUS was considered as the index test. For a comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT, patients with their index test taken between 2010 and 2017 were included. The reference standard consisted of surgical histopathology or radiological follow-up. Results: A total of 413 patients (92.8% of the database) underwent 3,477 imaging studies. The number of imaging studies per patient increased, and a preference for MRI was observed in the last decade. Overall diagnostic accuracy was good with a positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.9% (95% confidence interval, 76.0–95.6) and 92.8% (89.4–95.1), respectively, for PanNET in the pancreatic head and 92.0% (85.3–96.0) and 85.3% (80.5–89.1), respectively, in the body/tail. For MRI, PPV and NPV for pancreatic head tumors were 100% (76.1–100) and 87.1% (76.3–93.6) and for CT, 60.0% (22.9–88.4) and 70.4% (51.3–84.3), respectively. For body/tail tumors, PPV and NPV were 91.3% (72.0–98.8) and 87.0% (75.3–93.9), respectively, for MRI and 100% (74.9–100) and 77.8% (54.3–91.5), respectively, for CT. Pathology confirmed a PanNET in 106 out of 110 (96.4%) resection specimens. FNA was performed on 34 lesions in 33 patients and was considered PanNET in 24 [all confirmed PanNET by histology (10) or follow-up (14)], normal/cyst/unrepresentative in 6 (all confirmed

Context: Nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-pNETs) are highly prevalent and constitute an important cause of mortality in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). Still, the optimal age to initiate screening for pNETs is under debate. Objective: The aim of this work is to assess the age of occurrence of clinically relevant NF-pNETs in young MEN1 patients. Methods: Pancreatic imaging data of MEN1 patients were retrieved from the DutchMEN Study Group database. Interval-censored survival methods were used to describe age-related penetrance, compare survival curves, and develop a parametric model for estimating the risk of having clinically relevant NF-pNET at various ages. The primary objective was to assess age at occurrence of clinically relevant NF-pNET (size ≥†20 mm or rapid growth); secondary objectives were the age at occurrence of NF-pNET of any size and pNET-associated metastasized disease. Results: Five of 350 patients developed clinically relevant NF-pNETs before age 18 years, 2 of whom subsequently developed lymph node metastases. No differences in clinically relevant NF-pNET-free survival were found for sex, time frame, and type of MEN1 diagnosis or genotype. The estimated ages (median, 95% CI) at a 1%, 2.5%, and 5% risk of having developed a clinically relevant tumor are 9.5 (6.5-12.7), 13.5 (10.2-16.9), and 17.8 years (14.3-21.4), respectively. Conclusion: Analyses from this population-based cohort indicate that start of surveillance for NF-pNETs with pancreatic imaging at age 13 to 14 years is justified. The psychological and medical burden of screening at a young age should be considered.

Context: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with [Lutetium-177-DOTA-Tyr3]octreotate (177Lu-DOTATATE) results in an increase of progression-free survival and quality of life in patients with progressive, well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Objective: To study the effect of 177Lu-DOTATATE in patients with carcinoid syndrome and radiologically stable or newly diagnosed disease treated solely for the purpose of symptom reduction. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary care hospital. Patients: Twenty-two patients with a metastatic midgut NEN, elevated urinary 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid excretion, and flushing and/or diarrhea despite treatment with a somatostatin analog, without documented disease progression. Intervention: PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATATE (intended cumulative dose: 29.6 GBq) with a primary aim to reduce symptoms. Results: After PRRT, mean bowel movement frequency (BMF) decreased from 6.1 ± 3.4 to 4.6 ± 3.6 per day (P = 0.009). Flushes decreased from 4.3 ± 2.9 to 2.4 ± 2.7 flushes per day (P = 0.002). A decrease of BMF of more than 30% occurred in 47% of patients with baseline BMF of 4 or more (n = 17). In patients with ≥2 episodes of flushing a day (n = 15), 67% of patients had more than 50% decrease of daily flushing. A decrease in urinary 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid excretion of more than 30% was seen in 56% of patients. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Module diarrhea subscale score showed a trend toward improvement by an average of 16.7 ± 33.3 points (P = 0.11). Conclusion: PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATATE effectively reduced diarrhea and flushing in patients with carcinoid syndrome and can be considered for symptomatic treatment of carcinoid syndrome insufficiently controlled with somatostatin analogs.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors grade 1-2 (G1-G2). However, its possible benefit in high-grade gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN G3) is largely unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the benefits and side effects of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. We performed a retrospective cohort study at 12 centers to assess the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. Outcomes were response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. We included 149 patients (primary tumor: pancreatic n = 89, gastrointestinal n = 34, unknown n = 26). PRRT was first-line (n = 30), second-line (n = 62) or later-line treatment (n = 57). Of 114 patients evaluated, 1% had complete response, 41% partial response, 38% stable disease and 20% progressive disease. Of 104 patients with documented progressive disease before PRRT, disease control rate was 69%. The total cohort had median PFS of 14 months and OS of 29 months. Ki-67 21-54% (n = 125) vs Ki-67 >= 55% (n = 23): PFS 16 vs 6 months (P < 0.001) and OS 31 vs 9 months (P < 0.001). Well (n = 60) vs poorly differentiated NEN (n = 62): PFS 19 vs 8 months (P < 0.001) and OS 44 vs 19 months (P < 0.001). Grade 3-4 hematological or renal toxicity occurred in 17% of patients. This large multicenter cohort of patients with GEP NEN G3 treated with PRRT demonstrates promising response rates, disease control rates, PFS and OS as well as toxicity in patients with mainly progressive disease. Based on these results, PRRT may be considered for patients with GEP NEN G3.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors grade 1-2 (G1-G2). However, its possible benefit in high-grade gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN G3) is largely unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the benefits and side effects of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. We performed a retrospective cohort study at 12 centers to assess the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. Outcomes were response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. We included 149 patients (primary tumor: pancreatic n = 89, gastrointestinal n = 34, unknown n = 26). PRRT was first-line (n = 30), second-line (n = 62) or later-line treatment (n = 57). Of 114 patients evaluated, 1% had complete response, 41% partial response, 38% stable disease and 20% progressive disease. Of 104 patients with documented progressive disease before PRRT, disease control rate was 69%. The total cohort had median PFS of 14 months and OS of 29 months. Ki-67 21-54% (n = 125) vs Ki-67 >= 55% (n = 23): PFS 16 vs 6 months (P < 0.001) and OS 31 vs 9 months (P < 0.001). Well (n = 60) vs poorly differentiated NEN (n = 62): PFS 19 vs 8 months (P < 0.001) and OS 44 vs 19 months (P < 0.001). Grade 3-4 hematological or renal toxicity occurred in 17% of patients. This large multicenter cohort of patients with GEP NEN G3 treated with PRRT demonstrates promising response rates, disease control rates, PFS and OS as well as toxicity in patients with mainly progressive disease. Based on these results, PRRT may be considered for patients with GEP NEN G3.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) modified the grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms from a three-tier (WHO-AJCC 2010) to a four-tier system by introducing the novel category of NET G3 (WHO-AJCC 2017).OBJECTIVES: This study aims at validating the WHO-AJCC 2017 and identifying the most effective grading system.METHOD: A total of 2,102 patients were enrolled; entry criteria were: (i) patient underwent surgery; (ii) at least 2 years of follow-up; (iii) observation time up to 2015. Data from 34 variables were collected; grading was assessed and compared for efficacy by statistical means including Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression analysis, Harrell's C statistics, and Royston's explained variation in univariable and multivariable analyses.RESULTS: In descriptive analysis, the two grading systems demonstrated statistically significant differences for the major category sex but not for age groups. In Cox regression analysis, both grading systems showed statistically significant differences between grades for OS and EFS; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two G3 classes of WHO-AJCC 2017. In multivariable analysis for the two models fitted to compare efficacy, the two grading systems performed equally well with substantially similar optimal discrimination and well-explained variation for both OS and EFS. The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system retained statistically significant difference between the two G3 classes for OS but not for EFS.CONCLUSIONS: The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system is at least equally performing as the WHO-AJCC 2010 but allows the successful identification of the most aggressive PanNET subgroup. Grading is confirmed as probably the most powerful tool for predicting patient survival.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) modified the grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms from a three-tier (WHO-AJCC 2010) to a four-tier system by introducing the novel category of NET G3 (WHO-AJCC 2017). Objectives: This study aims at validating the WHO-AJCC 2017 and identifying the most effective grading system. Method: A total of 2,102 patients were enrolled; entry criteria were: (i) patient underwent surgery; (ii) at least 2 years of follow-up; (iii) observation time up to 2015. Data from 34 variables were collected; grading was assessed and compared for efficacy by statistical means including Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression analysis, Harrell's C statistics, and Royston's explained variation in univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: In descriptive analysis, the two grading systems demonstrated statistically significant differences for the major category sex but not for age groups. In Cox regression analysis, both grading systems showed statistically significant differences between grades for OS and EFS; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two G3 classes of WHO-AJCC 2017. In multivariable analysis for the two models fitted to compare efficacy, the two grading systems performed equally well with substantially similar optimal discrimination and well-explained variation for both OS and EFS. The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system retained statistically significant difference between the two G3 classes for OS but not for EFS. Conclusions: The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system is at least equally performing as the WHO-AJCC 2010 but allows the successful identification of the most aggressive PanNET subgroup. Grading is confirmed as probably the most powerful tool for predicting patient survival.