Monitoring is important to detect progression
It is important to monitor your NET patients for progression, changes in disease status, and response to management interventions.1 For example, imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can more definitively identify hepatic and extrahepatic disease spread, and morphologic patterns that may be different than those of the primary neoplasm.2-5 Tests for bioactive substances secreted by certain types of functional NETs may also be helpful in giving an indication of progressive disease.1 Symptom progression or the appearence of new symptoms may also indicate that a patient's disease has progressed.6
Tools for monitoring NETs
Many of the same tools that are used to diagnose NETs can be effective for monitoring them.1 Click on the descriptions below to learn more.
Imaging
Computed tomography (CT): A widely available monitoring tool for the localization and staging of solid tumors, including NETs.7
Learn more
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): A well-recognized imaging technique, useful in the localization of NETs and their metastases.3,5,7
Learn more
Octreoscan™: In conjunction with CT or MRI, Octreoscan may be particularly helpful in identifying previously unsuspected extrahepatic and lymph node metastases.3,8
Learn more
Octreoscan is a trademark of Covidien AG or one of its affiliates.
Biomarkers
Chromogranin A (CgA): up to 90% of patients with NETs have elevated levels of CgA.9,10
Learn more
5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA): 5-HIAA can be used to monitor NET patients. It also has prognostic value in NETs associated with carcinoid syndrome.11-13
Learn more
Other Monitoring Techniques
GI endoscopy: In certain cases, endoscopy may be appropriate for monitoring NETs, particularly those in the stomach, duodenum, and rectum.11
Learn more
Echocardiogram: Cardiac heart disease occurs in up to two thirds of patients with carcinoid syndrome.11 An echocardiogram may be considered at the time of initial diagnosis and can also be used to monitor certain NET patients.14
Biochemical tests
Some of the biochemical tests that can be used in the diagnosis of NETs also may be used to monitor change(s) in disease status (progression).1
The role of histology in prognosis
NETs can be characterized by their histologic features, including tumor necrosis, increased mitotic count, undifferentiated growth pattern, degree of nuclear pleomorphism, and vascular or lymphatic invasion. These features are used to classify grade 1 and grade 2 NETs and grade 3 neuroendocrine carcinomas, and can be correlated with disease-specific survival and risk of metastases.11 Additionally, some medical experts believe that lower grade NETs have the potential to transform into higher grade carcinomas.
Using monitoring tools in multidisciplinary centers
One advantage of a team-based, multidisciplinary approach to monitor existing NETs is that most centers have agreed-upon protocols for serial hematologic, biochemical, urinary, and radiologic assessments based on input from key specialists. These protocols enable centers to provide a formal assessment of therapeutic response, and afford them the opportunity to carry out controlled trials.15
1. Ramage JK, Davies AHG, Ardill J, et al. Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumours. Gut. 2005;54(suppl 4):iv1-iv16.
2. Kumbasar B, Kamel IR, Tekes A, Eng J, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Imaging of neuroendocrine tumors: accuracy of helical CT versus SRS. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:696-702.
3. Gibril F, Jensen RT. Comparative analysis of diagnostic techniques for localization of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Yale J Biol Med. 1997;70(2):509-522.
4. Kulke MH, Siu LL, Tepper JE, et al. Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(7):934-943.
5. Dromain C, de Baere T, Lumbroso J, et al. Detection of liver metastases from endocrine tumors: a prospective comparison of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(1):70-78.
6. Modlin IM, Oberg K, Chung DC, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(1):61-72.
7. Reznek RH. CT/MRI of neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:S163-S177.
8. Shi W, Johnston CF, Buchanan KD, et al. Localization of neuroendocrine tumours with [111In]DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy (Octreoscan): a comparative study with CT and MR imaging. Q J Med. 1998;91(4):295-301.
9. Öberg K. Biochemical diagnosis of neuroendocrine GEP tumor. Yale J Biol Med. 1997;70(5-6):501-508.
10. Peracchi M, Conte D, Gebbia C, et al. Plasma chromogranin A in patients with sporadic gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Eur J Endocrinol. 2003;148(1):39-43.
11. Jensen RT, Doherty GM. Carcinoid tumors and the carcinoid syndrome. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005:1559-1574.
12. Mamikunian G, Vinik AI, O'Dorisio TM, Woltering EA, Go VLW. Diagnosing and treating gastroenteropancreatic tumors, including ICD-9 codes. In: Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Comprehensive Guide to Diagnosis and Management. 4th ed. Inglewood, CA: Inter Science Institute; 2009:1-43.
13. Rorstad O. Prognostic indicators for carcinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. J Surg Oncol. 2005;89(3):151-160.
14. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Neuroendocrine Tumors. V.1.2011.
15. Caplin ME, Buscombe JR, Hilson AJ, Jones AL, Watkinson AF, Burroughs AK. Carcinoid tumour. Lancet. 1998;352(9130):799-805.
2. Kumbasar B, Kamel IR, Tekes A, Eng J, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Imaging of neuroendocrine tumors: accuracy of helical CT versus SRS. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:696-702.
3. Gibril F, Jensen RT. Comparative analysis of diagnostic techniques for localization of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Yale J Biol Med. 1997;70(2):509-522.
4. Kulke MH, Siu LL, Tepper JE, et al. Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(7):934-943.
5. Dromain C, de Baere T, Lumbroso J, et al. Detection of liver metastases from endocrine tumors: a prospective comparison of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(1):70-78.
11. Jensen RT, Doherty GM. Carcinoid tumors and the carcinoid syndrome. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005:1559-1574.
12. Mamikunian G, Vinik AI, O'Dorisio TM, Woltering EA, Go VLW. Diagnosing and treating gastroenteropancreatic tumors, including ICD-9 codes. In: Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Comprehensive Guide to Diagnosis and Management. 4th ed. Inglewood, CA: Inter Science Institute; 2009:1-43.
13. Rorstad O. Prognostic indicators for carcinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. J Surg Oncol. 2005;89(3):151-160.