A256 SURVEILLANCE OF SMALL, NON-FUNCTIONING, ASYMPTOMATIC PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIENCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Expert consensus surrounding surveillance for small, non-functioning, asymptomatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) remains conflicting. Recent observational studies have shown that surveillance is a safe strategy while large database studies show superior overall survival with surgical resection. Aims To describe the growth of small (<2cm), non-functioning, asymptomatic PNETs undergoing surveillance at a tertiary hospital in British Columbia. Methods We conducted a retrospective case series of patients with biopsy-proven, non-functioning, asymptomatic PNETs which were <2cm by RECIST criteria at diagnosis, who were followed through active surveillance at Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia from February 1, 2011-February 1, 2021. Patients were included if serial imaging, whether by endoscopic ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging, was available for a minimum of 24 months. Results Of the 57 patients with pathology-proven PNETs that were identified, 14 cases were included after excluding those with resection within 1 year (n=17), lost to follow up (n=13), metastatic disease (n=6), size greater than 2cm at diagnosis (n=4), and with concurrent cancer (n=3). Included patients were predominantly female (n=10, 71%), Caucasian (n=8, 57%), and had a mean Charlson comorbidity index of 3.14. Mean PNET size at diagnosis was 12mm with standard deviation of 4.26mm. Tumors were located in the pancreatic head (n=4, 29%), body (n=6, 42%), and tail (n=4, 29%). Of 8 patients who had Ki67 stains, all were <3%, and of 11 patients with mitotic index, all had <2 mitotic figures. As such, of the 8 patients with available WHO grading, all were grade 1. The average follow-up was 49.6 months with an average tumor growth of 0.82mm per year. When grouping these tumors by growth, 9 (62%) tumors exhibited no growth, 2 tumors grew <1mm per year, 2 tumors grew 1-1.5mm per year, and 1 tumor grew 7.7mm per year. Two cases (14%) of PNETs underwent surgical resection due to size surpassing 2 cm. No patients undergoing surveillance developed metastatic disease. Conclusions To our knowledge, we have performed the first Canadian series of small, low-grade PNETS and demonstrated that active surveillance is a safe strategy with most tumors exhibiting no growth of several years. Of the subset of PNETs which demonstrate progression, the preceding surveillance strategy did not disadvantage patients in terms of progression to metastases and allowed for delay of potentially morbid surgery. Further research with prospective studies and larger samples should be conducted. Funding Agencies CAG
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».