Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) of the tubular gastrointestinal tract (GI-NECs) are rare and associated with worse clinical outcomes. This population-based study aims to highlight key demographics, clinicopathological factors, and survival outcomes in the US population. Methods: Data from 10,387 patients with GI-NECs were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database from 2000 to 2020. Results: Most patients were >40 years old at the time of presentation with a median age of 63 years old, with almost equal ethnic distribution per US population data. The most common primary tumor site was the small intestine (33.6%). The metastatic spread was localized in 34.8%, regional in 27.8%, and distant in 37.3% of cases, and the liver was the most common site of metastasis (19.9%) in known cases of metastases. Most NEC patients underwent surgery, presenting the highest 5-year overall survival of 73.2% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 72.0-74.4%), while chemotherapy alone had the lowest 5-year survival of 8.0% (95% CI 6.4-10.0%). Compared to men, women had a superior 5-year survival rate of 59.0% (95% CI 57.6-60.5%). On multivariate analysis, age > 65 (HR 2.49, 95% CI 2.36-2.54%, p ≤ 0.001), distant metastasis (HR 2.57, 95% CI 2.52-2.62%, p ≤ 0.001), tumor size > 4 mm (HR 1.98, 95%, CI 1.70-2.31%, p ≤ 0.001), esophageal (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.86-2.58%, p ≤ 0.001), transverse colon (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15-3.33%, p ≤ 0.01), descending colon (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.12, 3.97%, p = 0.02) anorectal sites, and liver or lung metastases were associated with worse survival. Surgical intervention and tumors located in the small intestine or appendix showed a better prognosis. Conclusion: GI-NECs are a group of rare malignancies associated with a poor prognosis. Therefore, epidemiological studies analyzing national databases may be the best alternative to have a more comprehensive understanding of this condition, assess the impact of current practices, and generate prognosis tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yasinzai et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: