Lessons learned about appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms from data analysis of the Belgian Cancer Registry 2010-2015
|Journal||Volume 84 - 2021|
|Issue||Fasc.3 - Original articles|
|Author(s)||S. Ribeiro 1, F. De Maeyer 2, M. De Man 1, S. Carton 3, P.J. Cuyle 3, C. Verslype 4, I. Borbath 5, P. Demetter 6, N. Van Damme 1, L. Van Eycken 7, T. Vandamme 8, A. Hoorens 9, K. Geboes 1|
VIEW FREE PDF
(1) Gastroenterology Department, UZ Gent, Gent, Belgium
(2) Gastroenterology Department, Sint-Elisabeth Ziekenhuis, Zottegem, Belgium
(3) Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Department, Imelda General Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium
(4) Gastroenterology Department, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
(5) Gastroenterology Department, UCLouvain, Louvain, Belgium
(6) Department of Pathology, Institut Jules Bordet, ULB, Brussels, Belgium
(7) Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium
(8) NETwerk and Department of Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
(9) Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
Background and study aims: Appendiceal neuroendocrine neo- plasms (aNENs) are a diverse group of malignant neoplasms of varying biological behavior for which information about manage-ment and outcome is sparse, with the majority of available studies being retrospective, including only a limited number of patients, and therefore not necessarily reflecting the reality in the community. In the present study clinical, epidemiological and pathological data of appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms in Belgium is provided and compared with current literature.
Methods: A population-based study was conducted by linking data of the Belgian Cancer Registry with medical procedures in the Belgian Health Insurance database for patients diagnosed with aNEN between 2010 and 2015.
Results: We found an aNEN incidence of 0.97/100.000 person years in Belgium. Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the appendix are rare. Most appendiceal neuroendocrine tumors (aNETs) are small G1 tumors. Positive lymph nodes are often found in tumors larger than 2cm, especially aNET G2.
Conclusion: A rapid uptake of changing classifications was seen in the community. However, systematic reporting of risk factors for small aNEN can still be improved and should be stimulated. In 9% of cases, reclassifications had to be made, pointing out that in a retrospective analysis, original pathological reports should be checked for specific parameters, before reliable conclusions can be drawn.
Keywords: tumor, population-based study, appendix, quality, report, management.
|The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.|
© Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica.