Background Appendiceal Goblet cell tumors (GCTs) are clinically more aggressive, and have a worse outcome than midgut neuroendocrine tumors (mNETs). Guidelines for management of GCTs are limited. Methods A retrospective case-study analysis was performed in patients with a diagnosis of GCT, confirmed on histological review. Patients were evaluated clinically, biochemically, and radiologically. Results 48 patients were identified (TNM stage I-II: 27, stage III: 15, stage IV: 6). Median follow-up was 44 months and was complete in all patients. 68.8% presented with acute appendicitis. 44/48 patients had initial appendectomy, followed by prophylactic right hemicolectomy in 41. 10/48 patients had recurrent disease [median time to recurrence 28 months (range 4-159)]. Of those, 9 received systemic chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), which was also given in 5/48 patients with disseminated disease at diagnosis. Partial response, stable disease and disease progression was noted in 22%, 22% and 56%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was also administered in 9/48 patients with stage III disease after right hemicolectomy, however in 3/9 the disease recurred. Median progression/disease-free-survival was 44 months (range 3-159) and overall 5-year survival rate was 41.6%. Conclusions The clinical behaviour of GCTs is more similar to colorectal adenocarcinomas than to NETs. A prophylactic right hemicolectomy is recommended to reduce the risk of recurrence. Systemic chemotherapy, using colorectal adenocarcinoma regimens, is indicated for advanced or recurrent disease and has encouraging results. Prospective studies are needed to define the role of adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal chemotherapy regimen.

Goblet cell appendiceal tumors : management dilemmas and long-term outcomes

R.E. Rossi;
2015-01-01

Abstract

Background Appendiceal Goblet cell tumors (GCTs) are clinically more aggressive, and have a worse outcome than midgut neuroendocrine tumors (mNETs). Guidelines for management of GCTs are limited. Methods A retrospective case-study analysis was performed in patients with a diagnosis of GCT, confirmed on histological review. Patients were evaluated clinically, biochemically, and radiologically. Results 48 patients were identified (TNM stage I-II: 27, stage III: 15, stage IV: 6). Median follow-up was 44 months and was complete in all patients. 68.8% presented with acute appendicitis. 44/48 patients had initial appendectomy, followed by prophylactic right hemicolectomy in 41. 10/48 patients had recurrent disease [median time to recurrence 28 months (range 4-159)]. Of those, 9 received systemic chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), which was also given in 5/48 patients with disseminated disease at diagnosis. Partial response, stable disease and disease progression was noted in 22%, 22% and 56%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was also administered in 9/48 patients with stage III disease after right hemicolectomy, however in 3/9 the disease recurred. Median progression/disease-free-survival was 44 months (range 3-159) and overall 5-year survival rate was 41.6%. Conclusions The clinical behaviour of GCTs is more similar to colorectal adenocarcinomas than to NETs. A prophylactic right hemicolectomy is recommended to reduce the risk of recurrence. Systemic chemotherapy, using colorectal adenocarcinoma regimens, is indicated for advanced or recurrent disease and has encouraging results. Prospective studies are needed to define the role of adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal chemotherapy regimen.
2015
Appendix
Chemotherapy
Goblet cell tumor
Right hemicolectomy
Adult
Aged
Antineoplastic Agents
Databases
Factual
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Humans
London
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Appendiceal Neoplasms
Carcinoid Tumor
Oncology
Surgery
Medicine (all)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11699/104363
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 44
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 42
social impact