Goblet cell carcinomas (GCC) are a rare, aggressive sub-type of appendiceal tumours with neuroendocrine features, and controversy exists with regards to therapeutic strategy. We undertook a retrospective review of GCC patients surgically treated at two tertiary referral centres. Clinical and histopathological data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Survival analyses utilised Kaplan–Meier methodology. Twenty-one patients were identified (9 females). Median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range 32–77). There were 3, 6 and 9 grade 1, 2 and 3 tumours, respectively. One, 10, 5 and 5 patients had stage I, II, III and IV disease at diagnosis, respectively. There were 8, 10 and 3 Tang class A, B and C tumours, respectively. Index operation was appendectomy (n = 12), right hemicolectomy (n = 6) or resections including appendix/right colon, omentum and the gynaecological system (n = 3). Eight patients underwent completion right hemicolectomy. Surgery for recurrence included small bowel resection (n = 2), debulking with peritonectomy and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (all n = 1). Median follow-up was 30 months (range 2.5–123). One-, 3- and 5-year OS was 79.4, 60 and 60%, respectively. Mean OS (1-, 3-, and 5-year OS) for Tang class A, B and C tumours were 73.1 months (85.7, 85.7, 51.4%), 83.7 months (all 66.7%) and 28.5 months (66.7, 66.7%, not reached), respectively. Chromogranin A/B and 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT were not useful in follow-up, but CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125 and 18F-FDG PET/CT identified tumour recurrence. GCC must be clearly discriminated from relatively indolent appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms. 18F-FDG PET/CT and CEA/CA19-9/CA 125 are useful in detecting recurrence of GCC.
Ashley K Clift, Oskar Kornasiewicz, Panagiotis Drymousis, Omar Faiz, Harpreet S Wasan, James M Kinross, Thomas Cecil and Andrea Frilling
Ashley K Clift, Omar Faiz, Robert Goldin, John Martin, Harpreet Wasan, Marc-Olaf Liedke, Erik Schloericke, Anna Malczewska, Guido Rindi, Mark Kidd, Irvin M Modlin and Andrea Frilling
Neuroendocrine tumours (NET) are clinically challenging due to their unpredictable behaviour. Nomograms, grading and staging systems are predictive tools with multiple roles in clinical practice, including patient prognostication. The NET nomogram allocates scores for various clinicopathological parameters, calculating percentage estimates for 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival of patients with small bowel (SB) NET. We evaluated the clinical utility of three prognostic systems in 70 SB NET patients: the NET nomogram, the World Health Organisation (WHO)/European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) grading system and the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) TNM staging method. Using Kaplan–Meier methodology, neither the WHO/ENETS grade (P = 0.6) nor the AJCC/UICC stage (P = 0.276) systems demonstrated significant differences in patient survival in the cohort. The NET nomogram was well calibrated to our data set, displaying favourable prediction accuracy. Harrel’s C-index for the nomogram (a measure of predictive power) was 0.65, suggesting good prediction ability. On Kaplan–Meier analyses, there were significant differences in patient survival when stratified into nomogram score-based risk groups: low-, medium- and high-risk tumours were associated with median estimated survivals of 156, 129 and 112 months, respectively (P = 0.031). Our data suggest that a multivariable analysis-based NET nomogram may be clinically useful for patient survival prediction. This study identifies the limitations of the NET nomogram and the imperfections of other currently used single or binary parameter methodologies for assessing neuroendocrine disease prognosis. The future addition of other variables to the NET nomogram will likely amplify the accuracy of this personalised tool.