Analysis shows surgery improves survival in patients with synchronous liver metastases from gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, suggesting better outcomes with metastasectomy.
Surgical management strategies for patients with synchronous liver metastases from gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are controversial. This study sought to investigate survival outcomes associated with various resection strategies. Patients with grade I or II primary NETs originating from the small-bowel (SBNETs) or pancreas (PNETs) with synchronous liver metastasis alone were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2019). Data were analyzed using chi-square testing, the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Overall, 1448 patients were identified with grade I or II SBNETs ( n = 859, 59%) or PNETs ( n = 589, 41%) and synchronous liver metastases. The median follow-up period for the patients was 46 months (interquartile range [IQR], 29.0–72.0 months). Both primary resection and metastasectomy were more likely to be performed for SBNETs than for PNETs (41% vs 26%; p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed that the patients receiving primary tumor resection and metastasectomy had a longer mean disease-specific survival (SBNETs, 97.0 months; PNETs, 71.6 months) than the patients who were surgical candidates but refused surgery (SBNETs, 73.5 months; PNETs, 56.5 months; p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis controlling for grade, primary resection with metastasectomy was associated with a survival advantage compared with no surgical intervention for both the patients with SBNETs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.49; p = 0.01) and those with PNETs (HR, 0.22–0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–0.47; p < 0.001). This large population-level study suggests that the surgical management of patients who have primary SBNETs or PNETs with liver metastasis may be associated with a survival advantage. Surgeons should consider primary resection and metastasectomy (if safe and feasible) for this patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: