Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Endocrine Disorders 1/2018

Open Access 01.12.2018 | Research article

A modified M-stage classification based on the metastatic patterns of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study

verfasst von: Xianbin Zhang, Jiaxin Song, Peng Liu, Mohammad Abdul Mazid, Lili Lu, Yuru Shang, Yushan Wei, Peng Gong, Li Ma

Erschienen in: BMC Endocrine Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The present study aims to improve the M-stage classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs).

Methods

Two thousand six hundred sixty six pNENs were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to explore the metastatic patterns of pNENs. Metastatic patterns were categorized as single, two, or multiple (three or more) distant organ metastasis. The mean overall survival and hazard rate of different metastatic patterns were calculated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. The discriminatory capability of the modified M-stage classification was evaluated by Harrell’s concordance index.

Results

The overall survival time significantly decreased with an increasing number of metastatic organs. In addition, pNENs with only liver metastasis had better prognosis when compared to other metastatic patterns. Thus, we modified the M-stage classification (mM-stage) as follows: mM0-stage, tumor without metastasis; mM1-stage, tumor only metastasized to liver; mM2-stage, tumor metastasized to other single distant organ (lung, bone, or brain) or two distant organs; mM3-stage, tumor metastasized to three or more distant organs. Harrell’s concordance index showed that the modified M-stage classification had superior discriminatory capability than both the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) M-stage classifications.

Conclusions

The modified M-stage classification is superior to both AJCC and ENETS M-stage classifications in the prognosis of pNENs. In the future, individualized treatment and follow-up programs should be explored for patients with distinct metastatic patterns.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12902-018-0301-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Xianbin Zhang and Jiaxin Song contributed equally to this work.
Abkürzungen
AJCC
American Joint Committee on Cancer
ENETS
European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society
OS
Overall survival
pNENs
Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms
SD
Standard deviation
SEER
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result

Background

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) are relatively rare tumors. However, a recent population study showed that the incidence of pNENs increased more than 4-fold from 1973 to 2012 [1]. Moreover, pNENs are considered the most serious neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), due to the patients have a shorter median overall survival times (3.6 years) when compared to those with tumors located in lung (5.5 years), rectum (24.6 years), and appendix (more than 30.0 years) [1].
Cancer staging classification systems are used to codify the extent of cancer. They allow clinicians to quantify prognosis and plan treatment for individual patients. Two widely used tumor staging classification systems, which are proposed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), describe M0-stage as having no distant metastasis and M1-stage as having at least one distant metastasis [2, 3]. However, several studies demonstrated that pNENs with liver metastasis have better prognosis than other metastatic patterns [46].
Therefore, we utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database to explore the prognosis of different metastatic patterns of pNENs and propose a modified M-stage classification. This modified M-stage classification proves to be superior to both AJCC and ENETS M-stage classifications in prognosis.

Methods

Study cohort

As published previously [3], we utilized the topography codes (C25.0 to C25.9) and histology codes (8150, 8151, 8152, 8153, 8154, 8155, 8156, 8157, 8240, 8241, 8242, 8243, 8244, 8245, 8246, and 8249) of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (third edition) to identify pNENs.

Outcomes and variables

The primary outcome was overall survival. Demographic data included age, sex, and race; tumor characteristics included tumor size, primary site, differentiation, 7th AJCC T-stage, and N-stage; treatment information included surgery and radiotherapy. Single organ metastasis was defined as the tumor spreading from pancreas to another single distant organ [7]. Similarly, two organ metastases were defined as the tumor spreading from pancreas to two distant organs. Tumors spreading from pancreas to three or more distant organs were defined as multiple metastases.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Patients microscopically diagnosed as pNENs were included in the present study. We excluded cases with unclear or incomplete information about metastasis. In addition, we also excluded cases without information about survival time.

Statistical analyses

To compare the constituent ratio of variables among patients, we broke the continuous variables (age, tumor size) into binary variables. Survival time was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards model. The results were presented as mean and hazard ratio, respectively, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Harrell’s concordance index was used to evaluate the discriminatory capability of the modified M stage classification. An index value of greater than 0.70 suggests the classification has an acceptable discriminatory capability [8]. Differences with P ≤ 0.05 divided by the number of meaningful comparisons, Bonferroni correction, were considered to be significant. Differences with P ≤ 0.1 divided by the number of meaningful comparisons, were considered to indicate a tendency. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 (IBM, New York, USA) or R (version 3.5.0).

Results

Patient characteristics

In total, 2666 patients (mean age 60.9 years ±13.6 years; 55.7% male, 78.8% white) were included in the present study (Fig. 1). Many patients (55.4%) underwent surgery, and some (4.7%) were treated with radiation. The constituent ratios of tumor size, location, differentiation, T-stage, and N-stage were significantly (P < 0.05) different between patients with and without metastasis (Table 1).
Table 1
Clinicopathological Characters
 
Without Metastasis
Metastasis
P
N = 1679
N = 987
 
Age (years)
0.221b
  ≤ 60
793 (47.2%)
442 (44.8%)
 
  > 60
886 (52.8%)
545 (55.2%)
 
Sex
0.338a
 Male
924 (55.0%)
562 (56.9%)
 
 Female
755 (45.0%)
425 (43.1%)
 
Race
0.011a
 White
1314 (78.3%)
787 (79.7%)
 
 Black
191 (11.4%)
130 (13.2%)
 
 Other
174 (10.3%)
70 (7.1%)
 
Size (cm)
<  0.001b
  ≤ 2
670 (39.9%)
68 (6.9%)
 
  > 2
934 (55.6%)
699 (70.8%)
 
 Unclear
75 (4.5%)
220 (22.3%)
 
Primary Site
<  0.001b
 Head
502 (29.9%)
258 (26.2%)
 
 Body
295 (17.6%)
106 (10.7%)
 
 Tail
542 (32.3%)
314 (31.8%)
 
 Other
340 (20.2%)
309 (31.3%)
 
Differentiation
<  0.001b
 Well
1043 (62.1%)
189 (19.1%)
 
 Moderately
221 (13.2%)
86 (8.7%)
 
 Poorly
64 (3.8%)
95 (9.6%)
 
 Undifferentiated
17 (1.0%)
28 (2.8%)
 
 Unclear
334 (19.9%)
589 (59.7%)
 
T-sage
<  0.001b
 T1
602 (35.9%)
37 (3.7%)
 
 T2
538 (32.0%)
276 (28.0%)
 
 T3
389 (23.2%)
271 (27.5%)
 
 T4
67 (4.0%)
102 (10.3%)
 
 Tx
83 (4.9%)
301 (30.5%)
 
N-stage
<  0.001b
 N0
1247 (74.3%)
463 (46.9%)
 
 N1
401 (23.9%)
338 (34.3%)
 
 Nx
31 (1.8%)
186 (18.8%)
 
Surgery
<  0.001b
 Yes
1313 (78.2%)
164 (16.6%)
 
 No
339 (20.2%)
813 (82.4%)
 
 Unclear
27 (1.6%)
10 (1.0%)
 
Radiation
<  0.001b
 Yes
52 (3.1%)
74 (7.5%)
 
 No
1609 (95.8%)
905 (91.7%)
 
 Unclear
18 (1.1%)
8 (0.8%)
 
aChi-square test; bKruskal-Wallis test

Metastatic patterns and survival

At the time of diagnosis, 1679 (62.98%) patients showed no metastasis. As shown in Fig. 2a, single organ metastases comprised 850 (31.88%) patients, including 817 liver (30.64%), 22 lung (0.83%), nine bone (0.34%), and two brain (0.07%) cases. One hundred and twelve patients (4.20%) showed two-organ metastases, including 52 liver plus bone (1.95%), 53 liver plus lung (1.99%), four bone plus lung (0.15%), two liver plus brain (0.08%), and one bone plus brain (0.04%) cases. Twenty-five patients (0.94%) presented multiple organ metastases, including 19 cases of liver plus lung plus bone (0.71%), three cases of liver plus lung plus brain (0.11%), and three cases of liver plus lung plus brain plus bone (0.11%).
To assess survival time of different metastatic patterns, we compared the survival time of patients without metastasis to those with single distant organ metastasis, two-organ metastases, and multiple organ metastases. As the number of metastatic organs increased, survival time was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced (Fig. 2b). In addition, patients with only liver metastasis had a longer survival time than did other single-organ metastases (Fig. 2c), whereas patients with bone, lung or two-organ metastasis had similar mean survival time (bone, 18.32 months ± 5.27 months; lung, 17.77 months ± 3.54 months, two organs metastases, 15.79 months ± 1.70 months).

Modified M-stage classification and discriminatory capability

Thus, based on the observed metastatic patterns and survival times, we modified the M-stage classification (mM-stage) as shown in Table 2. Tumor without metastasis was defined as mM0-stage. Tumor spread from pancreas only to liver was defined as mM1-stage. Tumor spreading from pancreas to other single distant organ or to two distant organs was defined as mM2-stage. Tumor spreading to three or more distant organs was defined as mM3-stage.
Table 2
Definition of M-stage classifications
AJCC and ENTES M-stage classifications
Modified M-stage classifications
M0-stage, no distant metastasis
M1-stage, distant metastasis
mM0-stage, no distant metastasis
mM1-stage, only liver metastasis
mM2-stage, other single distant organ or two organs metastases
mM3-stage, three or more organs metastases
AJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer; ENETS European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society
To evaluate survival time among mM-stage classifications, survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and then compared with the log-rank test. We observed that all survival curves were well separated (Fig. 2d). Patients with advanced mM stages (mM1, mM2, mM3) had significantly (P < 0.001) shorter survival times than patients with mM0-stage (Fig. 2e). Moreover, the modified M-stage classification was an independent prognostic factor for pNENs, after adjusting for other clinical and pathological characteristics (Table 3).
Table 3
Independent Prognostic Factors
 
Univariate
Multivariate
HR and 95% CI
P-value
HR and 95% CI
P-value
Age (years)
  ≤ 60
Reference
Reference
  > 60
1.875 (1.595–2.204)
< 0.001
1.744 (1.479–2.055)
< 0.001
Sex
 Male
Reference
Reference
 Female
0.808 (0.691–0.945)
0.008
0.850 (0.726–0.996)
0.044
Race
 White
Reference
Reference
 Black
1.345 (1.082–1.670)
0.007
1.247 (0.998–1.558)
0.052
 Other
0.715 (0.527–0.970)
0.031
0.767 (0.565–1.043)
0.090
Size (cm)
  ≤ 2
Reference
Reference
  > 2
2.889 (2.241–3.724)
< 0.001
1.322 (1.009–1.731)
0.043
 Unclear
6.799(5.110–9.047)
< 0.001
1.547(1.129–2.119)
0.007
Primary Site
a
 Head
Reference
 
 Body
0.684(0.530–0.884)
0.004
  
 Tail
0.682(0.556–0.836)
< 0.001
  
 Other
1.128(0.929–1.368)
0.223
  
Differentiation
 Well
Reference
Reference
 Moderately
1.557 (1.095–2.215)
0.014
1.049 (0.735–1.498)
0.791
 Poorly
7.414 (5.608–9.803)
< 0.001
3.349 (2.498–4.489)
< 0.001
 Undifferentiated
9.494 (6.113–14.743)
< 0.001
3.166 (2.000–5.011)
< 0.001
 Unclear
5.136 (4.179–6.311)
< 0.001
1.626 (1.290–2.048)
< 0.001
T-stage
a
 T1
Reference
 
 T2
3.434(2.474–4.766)
< 0.001
  
 T3
3.353(2.399–4.688)
< 0.001
  
 T4
7.082(4.867–10.306)
< 0.001
  
 Tx
9.288(6.696–12.882)
< 0.001
  
N-stage
 N0
Reference
Reference
 N1
1.679 (1.415–1.993)
< 0.001
1.304 (1.092–1.557)
0.003
 Nx
3.732 (3.019–4.613)
< 0.001
1.452 (1.152–1.829)
0.002
Surgery
 Yes
Reference
Reference
 No
8.556 (6.941–10.548)
< 0.001
3.901 (3.013–5.050)
< 0.001
 Unclear
1.991 (0.812–4.883)
0.133
1.487 (0.601–3.680)
0.391
Radiation
a
 Yes
Reference
 
 No
1.984(1.511–2.603)
< 0.001
  
 Unclear
0.939(0.420–2.098)
0.878
  
mM-stage
 mM0-stage
Reference
Reference
 mM1-stage
4.520 (3.789–5.393)
< 0.001
1.643 (1.339–2.016)
< 0.001
 mM2-stage
8.199(6.380–10.537)
< 0.001
2.249(1.704–2.968)
< 0.001
 mM3-stage
16.356 (10.266–26.059)
< 0.001
5.034 (3.110–8.150)
< 0.001
avariables excluded by multivariate forward stepwise cox regression
To explore discriminatory capability of the modified M-stage classification, Harrell’s concordance index was calculated. The mM-stage classification had a better discriminatory capability (Harrell’s concordance index, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.692–0.732) than AJCC M-stage and ENETS M-stage (Harrell’s concordance index, 0.697; 95% CI, 0.678–0.717).

Discussion

In agreement with previous studies [911], the present study also demonstrated that nearly one quarter of patients (37.02%, 987/2666) presenting metastasis at the time of pNEN diagnosis. In addition, liver metastasis was the majority metastatic pattern, followed by lung, bone and brain metastasis. The hematogenous mode of metastasis might contribute to the metastatic pattern, which we have observed in the present study. Unsually, carcinoma cells seed in the liver via the portal venous system. Then, these cells would spread to lung via the inferior vena cava and pulmonary arteries. Finally, the carcinoma cells from lung metastases would seed in other organs via arterial blood [12].
The present study found that with an increasing number of metastatic organs, there was a significant decrease in survival time. In addition, pNENs with liver metastasis had longer overall survival than other single-organ metastatic patterns. However, AJCC and ENETS classify both pNENs with liver metastasis and pNENs with the other metastasitic patterns as M1-stage. Our modified M-stage classification distinguishes that tumor spreading from pancreas only to liver should be separated from the other metastatic patterns, and that it is necessary to design individualized treatment and follow-up programs for patients with lung, bone, or brain metastasis.
Usually, pancreatic resection is not performed when the pancreatic malignant tumor has spread to other organs [13]. However, considering the indolent behavior of pNENs and the high frequency of liver metastasis, several clinicians suggested surgical management could give rise to benefit to pNENs with liver metastasis [4, 14]. Birnbaum et al. pancreatic resection could slow down tumor growth and reduce hormone production [14], possibly resulting in considerable benefit for patients with liver metastasis [4].
Consistent with previous studies, the tumor size, primary site, differentiation, AJCC T-stage and AJCC N-stage were identified as predictors of distant organ metastasis (Additional file 1: Table S1). Unfortunately, SEER database did not record Ki-67 status and graded the primary tumor only on the basis of morphological description (ICD-O-3) in the pathology report. Thus, we failed to evaluate the predictive role of Ki-67 status and WHO 2010 grading classification (NET G1, NET G2, NET G3 and NEC) in distant organ metastasis.
It seems the primary tumor site is a particularly useful predictor because it is available before any operation occurs. Hao et al. reported that compared to tumors located in the head and neck of the pancreas, tumors in the body and tail showed a decreased risk of liver metastasis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma [15]. In contrast, the present study showed that pNENs located in the pancreatic tail are actually 1.728 times more likely (P < 0.001) to develop metastasis, as compared to tumors located in the pancreatic head. This may be due to the fact that patients with pNENs, especially non-functioning pNENs, in the tail of the pancreas are less likely to experience obstructive signs and hormonal symptoms until tumors spread to the peritoneum, spleen, and distant organs [16, 17]. Thus, at the time of diagnosis, distant organ metastases exist in most of these patients.
Some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, the SEER database only provides information on pNEN metastasis to liver, lung, bone, and brain. The frequency of pNEN metastasis might be underestimated. Second, Hlatky et al. noted that multiple metastatic lesions may be related to a short survival time [18]. However, the SEER database did not collect data on the number of metastatic lesions in each distant organ.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this is the first population-based study to investigate the metastatic patterns and predictors in advanced pNENs. We found significant differences in survival time across different metastatic patterns. Thus, the modified M-stage classification show a better discriminatory capability than the AJCC and ENETS M-stage classifications. In the future, clinicians should determine individualized treatment and follow-up programs for pNENs with different metastatic patterns.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program providing the original data. We also thank Prof. Wenli Zhang and Prof. Houli Zhang gave us critical comments during the revision of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 81473504, 81200989]; China Scholarship Council [grant number 201608080195]. The funders had no any role in the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the SEER database (https://​seer.​cancer.​gov/​).
The original data of our study were provided by SEER database (research data agreement to Xianbin Zhang) and the study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University (approval number: YJ-KY-FB-2017-05).
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1335–42.CrossRef Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1335–42.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Panzuto F, Boninsegna L, Fazio N, et al. Metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic endocrine carcinomas: analysis of factors associated with disease progression. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2372–7.CrossRef Panzuto F, Boninsegna L, Fazio N, et al. Metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic endocrine carcinomas: analysis of factors associated with disease progression. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2372–7.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang X, Lu L, Shang Y, et al. The number of positive lymph node is a better predictor of survival than the lymph node metastasis status for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2017;48:142–8.CrossRef Zhang X, Lu L, Shang Y, et al. The number of positive lymph node is a better predictor of survival than the lymph node metastasis status for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2017;48:142–8.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Jin K, Xu J, Chen J, et al. Surgical management for non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with synchronous liver metastasis: a consensus from the Chinese study Group for Neuroendocrine Tumors (CSNET). Int J Oncol. 2016;49:1991–2000.CrossRef Jin K, Xu J, Chen J, et al. Surgical management for non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with synchronous liver metastasis: a consensus from the Chinese study Group for Neuroendocrine Tumors (CSNET). Int J Oncol. 2016;49:1991–2000.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Garcia-Carbonero R, Rinke A, Valle JW, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine neoplasms. Systemic therapy 2: chemotherapy. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:281–94.CrossRef Garcia-Carbonero R, Rinke A, Valle JW, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine neoplasms. Systemic therapy 2: chemotherapy. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:281–94.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Chamberlain RS, Canes D, Brown KT, et al. Hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: does intervention alter outcomes? Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:432–45.CrossRef Chamberlain RS, Canes D, Brown KT, et al. Hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: does intervention alter outcomes? Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:432–45.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Vatandoust S, Price TJ, Karapetis CS. Colorectal cancer: metastases to a single organ. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:11767–76.CrossRef Vatandoust S, Price TJ, Karapetis CS. Colorectal cancer: metastases to a single organ. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:11767–76.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Bando E, Makuuchi R, Tokunaga M, et al. Impact of clinical tumor–node–metastasis staging on survival in gastric carcinoma patients receiving surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:448–56.CrossRef Bando E, Makuuchi R, Tokunaga M, et al. Impact of clinical tumor–node–metastasis staging on survival in gastric carcinoma patients receiving surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:448–56.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Niederle MB, Hackl M, Kaserer K, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: the current incidence and staging based on the WHO and European neuroendocrine tumour society classification: an analysis based on prospectively collected parameters. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010;17:909–18.CrossRef Niederle MB, Hackl M, Kaserer K, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: the current incidence and staging based on the WHO and European neuroendocrine tumour society classification: an analysis based on prospectively collected parameters. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010;17:909–18.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lawrence B, Gustafsson BI, Chan A, et al. The epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2011;40:1–18.CrossRef Lawrence B, Gustafsson BI, Chan A, et al. The epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2011;40:1–18.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Pavel M, Costa F, Capdevila J, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103:172–85.CrossRef Pavel M, Costa F, Capdevila J, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103:172–85.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Weiss L, Grundmann E, Torhorst J, et al. Haematogenous metastatic patterns in colonic carcinoma: an analysis of 1541 necropsies. J Pathol. 1986;150:195–203.CrossRef Weiss L, Grundmann E, Torhorst J, et al. Haematogenous metastatic patterns in colonic carcinoma: an analysis of 1541 necropsies. J Pathol. 1986;150:195–203.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Partelli S, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for standard of care in neuroendocrine tumours: surgery for small intestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:255–65.CrossRef Partelli S, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for standard of care in neuroendocrine tumours: surgery for small intestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:255–65.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Birnbaum DJ, Turrini O, Vigano L, et al. Surgical management of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: short-term and long-term results from an international multi-institutional study. Ann Surg Onco. 2015;22:1000–7.CrossRef Birnbaum DJ, Turrini O, Vigano L, et al. Surgical management of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: short-term and long-term results from an international multi-institutional study. Ann Surg Onco. 2015;22:1000–7.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat S D LW, GY B, et al. Risk factors of liver metastasis from advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large multicenter cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:120.CrossRef S D LW, GY B, et al. Risk factors of liver metastasis from advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large multicenter cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:120.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Freelove R, Walling AD. Pancreatic cancer: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician. 2006;73:485–92.PubMed Freelove R, Walling AD. Pancreatic cancer: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician. 2006;73:485–92.PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang X, Ma L, Bao H, et al. Clinical, pathological and prognostic characteristics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in China: a retrospective study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2014;14:54.CrossRef Zhang X, Ma L, Bao H, et al. Clinical, pathological and prognostic characteristics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in China: a retrospective study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2014;14:54.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hlatky R, Suki D, Sawaya R. Carcinoid metastasis to the brain. Cancer. 2004;101:2605–13.CrossRef Hlatky R, Suki D, Sawaya R. Carcinoid metastasis to the brain. Cancer. 2004;101:2605–13.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A modified M-stage classification based on the metastatic patterns of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study
verfasst von
Xianbin Zhang
Jiaxin Song
Peng Liu
Mohammad Abdul Mazid
Lili Lu
Yuru Shang
Yushan Wei
Peng Gong
Li Ma
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2018
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Endocrine Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2018
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6823
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-018-0301-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

BMC Endocrine Disorders 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.