English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (GEP-NEC) are a very aggressive type of cancer, for which prognostic factors are lacking. We analysed clinical and histomorphological prognostic markers of overall survival (OS), completed with a record of biological and haematological data of patients diagnosed between December 2002 and December 2015. The median OS was 16 months (95% CI 13.9–18.1). After univariate analysis, performance status (PS) ≥ 2 and stage IV were associated with a worse outcome (9 months and 14 months, respectively), as well as patients with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels ≥ 2 ULN (9 months and 8 months, respectively). After multivariate analysis, LDH and AST levels were the only factors that remained significantly associated with better survival: HR 0.36 ( p  = 0.04) and 0.31 ( p  = 0.03), respectively. When patients had elevated LDH and AST levels, OS was 20 months, when they had high LDH or AST levels, 13 months and 8 months in the group with low LDH and AST levels ( p  < 0.001). Therefore, biological data appeared to be more relevant prognostic factors than usual factors described in other studies (PS, stage, and Ki-67). Considering LDH and AST levels at diagnosis could help physicians to predict survival and to stratify patients for clinical trials.

Prognostic factors in neuroendocrine carcinoma: biological markers are more useful than histomorphological markers