419P - Optimal follow-up strategy for resected neuroendocrine tumours: A systematic review
|Date||17 December 2016|
|Event||ESMO Asia 2016 Congress|
|Topics|| Neuroendocrine Cancers
Imaging, Diagnosis and Staging
|Citation||Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (suppl_9): ix130-ix131. 10.1093/annonc/mdw590|
D. Patel1, D. Chan2, L. Moody3, G. Cehic1, E. Segelov4, S. Singh2
The incidence of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) has doubled over the last 20 years with an increasing number of proven systemic treatment strategies (ref). The optimal follow-up protocol for this patient population remains undetermined. This abstract reports a systematic review of follow up stratagies for NETs from 1996-2016.undertaken by COMMNETS in order to develop optimal follow-up strategy for patients with resected NETs.
A systematic search strategy was carried out of the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases and abstracts of major meetings (ASCO, ESMO, NANETS, and ENETS). Inclusion criteria included Prospective studies or retrospective studies of more than 25 patients that described follow up strategy for surgically resected non-metastatic NETs Merkel cell cancer and small cell/large cell carcinomas of the lung were excluded.
Twelve studies were included for full review which described follow-up strategies post-resection of NETs. Of these, 10 were retrospective and two were prospective studies, but no ranodomized studies were found. The studies reported no consistent follow-up strategies and were marked by limitations including insufficient data, methodological bias and between-study heterogeneity. No formal data synthesis was possible. Two studies presented a comparison between follow up strategies. One study examined “rigorous” follow-up (defined as clinical review and CT, MRI or somatostatin receptor scintigraphy at least yearly) versus non-rigorous followup, but showed no difference in relapse rates.
There is little reported evidence to definitively guide the optimal follow-up strategy in resected NETs. This systematic review has identified a gap and a need for vital research into different aspects of follow-up.
Clinical trial indentification
Legal entity responsible for the study
There is no separate funding for this abstract. It has been conducted as part of departmental research activity at Medical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
D. Chan: Travel grant: Novartis Honorarium: Ipsen. S. Singh: Honoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.