Abstract
Although pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are generally considered to have a favorable overall prognosis after resection, disease recurrence has been observed. Few studies have specifically addressed recurrence after resection of PNETs, especially for non-functioning PNETs (NF-PNETs). The aim of our study is to analyze the recurrence of resected well-differentiated NF-PNETs.
Patients who underwent surgical resection for grade 1 and 2 NF-PNETs without synchronous metastasis were identified for analysis. Patients were treated from January 2009 to December 2017 in our institution. Univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis were conducted to identify prognostic factors.
Of the 88 patients, 46 were men (52%) and the mean age was 52 years. With a median follow-up of 49.1 months (range, 8–122 months), there were 12 recurrences (14%). Liver was the most common recurrence site (7/12, 58%). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival was 99%, 90%, and 88%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified that age >52 years, positive lymph nodes, tumor grade 2, and Ki67 index ≥5% were statistically significant. Multivariate analysis identified that Ki67 index ≥5% (hazard ratio [HR], 4.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36–16.75, P = .015), positive lymph nodes (HR, 6.75; 95% CI, 1.73–24.43, P = .006) were independently associated with recurrence. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 53% (95% CI, 14.20–91.81%) for patients with Ki-67 ≥5% or (and) positive lymph nodes, while 95% (95% CI, 82.26–100%) for the patients without these 2 factors.
Ki67 index and lymph node status are independently associated with recurrence after resection of well-differentiated NF-PNETs in this study.
Keywords: nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, recurrence
1. Introduction
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable clinical behavior.[1] In recent years, with the widespread use of high-quality imaging techniques, the incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) has increased, especially for non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PNETs).[2] As a type of neoplasm with malignant potential, predictors for PNETs have been studied extensively. Tumor grade, tumor size, vascular invasion, perineural invasion, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis have been reported to be associated with survival.[3–6] However, few studies have specifically addressed factors associated with recurrence after resection.
Although pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are generally considered to have a good overall prognosis after resection, disease recurrence has been observed in 21% to 42% of patients with PNETs.[7] As for well-differentiated NF-PNETs (grade 1 and 2), the recurrence rate is reported to be 17% after resection.[8] Distant metastasis has been reported as the most common pattern of recurrence, leading to a poor survival of these patients.[8–10] However, there have been few reports regarding the recurrence after resection of PNETs, especially for NF-PNETs. Furthermore, most studies analyzing the factors associated with recurrence of resected PNETs included the patients with insulinoma, Zollinger–Ellison, metastases or locally advanced disease. All these patients have a different prognosis. As reported by Rindi et al,[11] the tumor-related death of insulinoma, NF-PNETs, and other types of PNETs are 4.9%, 22.1%, and 25.7%, respectively. In addition, the WHO grade 3 and synchronous metastasis are widely regarded as predictors of aggressive biological behavior and poor survival in patients with PNETs.[2,12]
Therefore, the aim of our study is to assess the recurrence rate and patterns of resected grade 1 and 2 NF-PNETs without synchronous metastasis and evaluates the factors associated with recurrence.
2. Methods
We retrospectively analyzed the patients who underwent resection for PNETs from January 2009 to December 2017 in our institution. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethic Committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PNETs) were defined as PNETs without clinical symptoms of hormone hypersecretion. Eighty-eight patients with well-differentiated NF-PNETs (grade 1 and 2) and without synchronous metastasis were selected. Patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia or von Hippel-Lindau and those with endocrine tumors arising from the papilla of Vater, bile duct, or duodenum were excluded. Data points including age, sex, presentation, and type of resection were retrieved from medical records. Postoperative pancreatic fistulae were defined according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)[13] and complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo system.[14] Pathology results were reviewed: tumor location, tumor size, vascular invasion, resection margin, positive Lymph nodes, TNM stage, and Ki67 index. Tumors were classified according to the 2010 WHO grading system.[11] Grades were defined as follows: low grade (G1), Ki-67 index <3%; intermediate grade (G2), 3% to 20% Ki-67 index.
Follow-up was performed every 6 months in the first year and annually thereafter. The follow-up program consisted of physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiological imaging. Recurrence-free survival was defined as the percentage of patients without recurrence after resection. Patients who were lost at follow-up or did not receive follow-up at our institution were exclude from the survival analysis.
Univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis were conducted to identify factors associated with recurrence. Kaplan Meier survival analysis with log rank test was performed to investigate the survival. Statistical difference was considered significant when P-value was <.05.
3. Results
Characteristics of 88 patients with resected well-differentiated NF-PNETs are listed in Table 1. There was no sex predominance (men, 46/88, 52%). The mean age was 52 years, ranging from 26 to 75. Of the 88 patients, 48 patients (55%) were symptomatic. Abdominal pain or distension was the most common symptom (37/88, 42%), followed by weight loss, jaundice (4/88, 5%), abdominal mass (2/88, 2%). Gastrointestinal bleeding was caused by tumor invasion of the duodenum. Most patients underwent standard pancreatic resection including pancreaticoduodenectomy (32/88, 36%) and distal pancreatectomy (37/88, 42%). Postoperative complications occurred in 46 patients (52%) and 18 patients (18%) graded III–IV. There was no in-hospital death in our study. Thirty-four patients (37%) had a postoperative pancreatic fistula, of those, 14 patients (16%) graded B and C.
Table 1.
Demographics, presentation, type of resection, and postoperative complications of 88 patients with resected well-differentiated NF-PNETs.

Table 2 shows the pathological and recurrence features. The greatest number of tumors were located in head (38/88, 43%), followed by 35% located in body and 22% located in tail. The mean size of tumors was 3.7 cm (range, 1.1–9.2 cm). Five patients were confirmed to have vascular invasion. Notably, 13 patients (13/88, 15%) were identified with positive lymph nodes. Fourteen patients (16%) were of stage I, while 41 patients (47%) were of stage II, and 33 patients (38%) were of stage III. Regarding Ki67 index, 32 patients (36%) had Ki67 index <3% (WHO grade 1), and 56 patients (64%) had Ki67 index ≥3% (WHO grade 2). Of the 56 patients with grade 2, 20 patients (23%) had Ki67 index ≥5%. There were 12 recurrences (14%) in total, and 6 patients of these were with positive lymph nodes, 10 patients with tumor grade 2. Seven recurrences (7/12, 58%) were located in liver with or without new lymph nodes, 3 located in the pancreatic remnant (local) and 2 located in the lymph nodes only.
Table 2.
Pathological and recurrence features of 88 patients with resected well-differentiated NF-PNETs.

Follow-up was achieved in 81 patients (81/88, 92%), of these there were 12 recurrences (14%). Median recurrence-free survival after primary resection was 49.1 months (range, 8–122 months). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival was 99%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (Fig. 1). Overall survival for those with and without recurrence was 83% and 97% (P = .18). As shown in Table 3, univariate analysis identified that age >52 years, positive lymph nodes, tumor grade 2, and Ki67 index ≥5% were statistically significant while sex, symptoms, tumor location, size, vascular invasion, and resection margin were not. Multivariate analysis identified that Ki67 index ≥5% (hazard ratio [HR], 4.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36–16.75), positive lymph nodes (HR, 6.75; 95% CI, 1.73–24.43) were independently associated with recurrence. The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 53% (95% CI, 14.20–91.81%) with Ki-67 ≥5% or positive lymph nodes and 95% (95% CI, 82.26–100%) for the patients without these 2 factors (P < .001; Fig. 2).
Figure 1.

Recurrence-free survival of 81 patients with follow-up.
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of recurrence-free survival in 81 patients with resected well-differentiated NF-PNETs∗.

Figure 2.

Comparison of recurrence-free survival after resection between patients with Ki-67 ≥5% or (and) positive lymph nodes and those without (P < .001).
4. Discussion
Generally, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are considered to have low malignant potential and a good overall prognosis. However, due to their heterogeneity and rarity, the natural history of PNETs is not fully understood and recurrence has been observed after curative resection. Besides, the prognosis of NF-PNETs and other PNETs is different. A large scaled study has reported that functioning-PNETs have different behavior in terms of disease recurrence than NF-PNETs.[10] The recurrence of PNETs including functioning tumors may not reflect that of NF-PNETs. Furthermore, according to the WHO 2010 grading system, grade 3 is classified as poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) and the therapeutic strategy for NECs is different from other PNETs. The same author has demonstrated that patients with grade 1 and 2 have a completely different recurrence pattern than patients with grade 3.[10] Due to the different histologic characteristic and biologic behavior, it is necessary to discriminate grade 1 and 2 from grade 3 when analyzing the recurrence of NF-PNETs.
Although National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggests that patients should be surveyed for 3 to 12 months after resection and thereafter every 6 to 12 months, there is no difference regarding follow-up strategy between low and high risk group on the basis of patient characteristics. Additionally, adjuvant treatment after surgical resection is not recommended for patients with NF-PNETs.[2] Our results identified that positive lymph nodes and an elevated Ki67 index were independently associated with recurrence after resection of NF-PNET. Therefore, more frequent follow-up or adjuvant therapy may be needed after surgical resection in these patient groups.
In our study, the incidence of recurrence was 14% with the liver being the most common site (7/12, 58%). This is a relatively low recurrence rate compared with other series of NF-PNETs.[10] Our lower recurrence rate is likely due to the selection of only grade 1 and 2 NF-PNETs for the current analysis. In several published reports, same with us, distant metastases were mostly observed and liver was the most frequent recurrence site.[7,10,15] Although liver metastasis predicting poor prognosis of PNETS is not generally debated, patients with liver metastasis can benefit from surgical management and other non-operative therapies.[16,17] With a relatively short follow-up, few deaths were observed after recurrence in our study. There was no difference in overall survival between patients with and without recurrence (83% vs 97%, P = .18). One study evaluating the recurrence of PNETs showed the same results that patients with recurrence have good long-term overall survival.[7] This may be due to the indolent course of the disease process.
The 2010 and 2017 WHO tumor grade classification differentiate grade 1 from 2 PNETs with a cutoff of Ki67 index <3%. Several studies have demonstrated the significance of WHO grading system in predicting long-term survival for PNETs.[3,18,19] In our study, Ki67 index ≥5% instead of grade 2 was identified to be independently associated with recurrence. Recently, one large scale study with 280 well-differentiated NF-PNETS described the use of the Ki67 index to estimate postoperative recurrence. Same with us, their results showed that only when the cutoff value was increased to Ki67 index ≥5%, the difference of high and low risk for recurrence after surgery was presented.[15] Additionally, several studies showed that the Ki67 cutoff of 5% instead of 3% was effective in predicting disease progression.[11,20,21] However, Harimoto et al[22] showed that WHO tumor grading system was a significant predictor for recurrence in NF-PNETs. In view of the present controversy, our report could provide some insights regarding this issue.
In some cases, lymph node status show no significant predictive value for survival of PNETS.[23,24] Wong et al[25] have reported that lymph node metastasis does not affect overall and disease-free survival. However, related reports identified positive lymph nodes as an independent risk factor for recurrence of PNETS.[7,8,26] For well-differentiated PNETs, lymph node metastasis was significantly associated with malignant potential, such as larger tumor size, higher Ki67 index, higher tumor grade, and neural invasion.[22] In the present study, positive lymph nodes were most strongly associated with recurrence and patients with positive lymph nodes developed recurrence at 7 times the rate of those with negative lymph nodes.
It is still controversial whether tumor size, vascular invasion can be predictors of PNETs. Published reports have demonstrated that tumor size was a significant predictor of recurrence,[27,28] in addition, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) suggests that vascular invasion is one of the criteria for assessing the prognosis of PNETs.[2] According to our data, tumor size and vascular invasion were not associated with recurrence. Furthermore, our data showed that almost all of recurrences (11/12, 92%) had an R0 resection and resection margins was not associated with recurrence. In most cases, the resection margin is not significant in predicting recurrence of PNETs.[7,8,15] However, a large, multi-institutional research has demonstrated that R1 margins were associated with tumor recurrence.[29] More high-quality data are needed to demonstrate the relationship between resection margin and recurrence.
As a retrospective analysis, there were several limitations in our study. First, data from the medical records were not complete. For example, perineural invasion, as a significant factor for prognosis of PNETs reported by several studies before, was not available in the pathological reports. Second, the sample was relatively small due to the rarity of the disease which prevented us from making strong conclusions. More multicenter prospective studies are necessary to better understand the recurrence of well-differentiated NF-PNETs.
5. Conclusions
Ki67 index and lymph node status are independently associated with recurrence after resection of well-differentiated NF-PNETs in this study. Patients with high risk of recurrence may need a more frequent follow-up or an adjuvant therapy after surgical resection.
Author contributions
Resources: Neng-wen Ke, Xing Wang.
Software: Xiao-mei Zhu.
Supervision: Xu-Bao Liu, Neng-wen Ke.
Writing – original draft: Qing-quan Tan, Xing Wang.
Writing – review & editing: Le Yang, Yong-Hua Chen, Chun-lu Tan.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, ENETS = European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, HR = hazard ratio, ISGPS = International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery, NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NF-PNETs = non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, PNETs = pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, WHO = World Health Organization.
How to cite this article: Tan Qq, Wang X, Yang L, Chen YH, Tan Cl, Zhu Xm, Ke Nw, Liu XB. Analysis of recurrence after resection of well-differentiated non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Medicine. 2020;99:24(e20324).
Q-qT and XW have contributed equally to this work and therefore shared first authors.
This work was supported in part by research grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81602133), the Key Research and Development Projects in Sichuan Province (Grant No. 2019YFS0043), the Post-Doctor Research Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (2019HXBH044) and the 1·3·5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (ZY2017302-1.3.5).
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
- [1].Metz DC, Jensen RT. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: pancreatic endocrine tumors. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1469–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Falconi M, Bartsch DK, Eriksson B, et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms of the digestive system: well-differentiated pancreatic non-functioning tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2012;95:120–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Fischer L, Bergmann F, Schimmack S, et al. Outcome of surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Br J Surg 2014;101:1405–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Bettini R, Partelli S, Boninsegna L, et al. Tumor size correlates with malignancy in nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine tumor. Surgery 2011;150:75–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Landoni L, Marchegiani G, Pollini T, et al. The evolution of surgical strategies for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pan-nens): time-trend and outcome analysis from 587 consecutive resections at a high-volume institution. Ann Surg 2019;269:725–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Teo RYA, Teo TZ, Tai DWM, et al. Systematic review of current prognostication systems for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Surgery 2019;165:672–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Chouliaras K, Newman NA, Shukla M, et al. Analysis of recurrence after the resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Surg Oncol 2018;118:416–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Genc CG, Jilesen AP, Partelli S, et al. A new scoring system to predict recurrent disease in Grade 1 and 2 nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg 2018;267:1148–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2016;103:153–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Marchegiani G, Landoni L, Andrianello S, et al. Patterns of recurrence after resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: who, when, and where? Neuroendocrinology 2019;108:161–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Rindi G, Falconi M, Klersy C, et al. TNM staging of neoplasms of the endocrine pancreas: results from a large international cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:764–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Cherenfant J, Stocker SJ, Gage MK, et al. Predicting aggressive behavior in nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Surgery 2013;154:785–91. discussion 791-783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017;161:584–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Genc CG, Falconi M, Partelli S, et al. Recurrence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and survival predicted by Ki67. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:2467–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Pulitano C, et al. Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:3129–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Castellano D, Grande E, Valle J, et al. Expert consensus for the management of advanced or metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine and carcinoid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015;75:1099–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Rindi G, Petrone G, Inzani F. The 2010 WHO classification of digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: a critical appraisal four years after its introduction. Endocr Pathol 2014;25:186–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Yang M, Tian BL, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of the World Health Organization 2010 grading system in surgical outcome and prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Pancreas 2014;43:1003–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Scarpa A, Mantovani W, Capelli P, et al. Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients. Mod Pathol 2010;23:824–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Ausania F, Senra del Rio P, Gomez-Bravo MA, et al. Can we predict recurrence in WHO G1-G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms? Results from a multi-institutional Spanish study. Pancreatology 2019;19:367–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Harimoto N, Hoshino K, Muranushi R, et al. Significance of lymph node metastasis in resectable well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Pancreas 2019;48:943–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Franko J, Feng W, Yip L, et al. Non-functional neuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas: incidence, tumor biology, and outcomes in 2,158 patients. J Gastrointestinal Surg 2010;14:541–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Fischer L, Kleeff J, Esposito I, et al. Clinical outcome and long-term survival in 118 consecutive patients with neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas. Br J Surg 2008;95:627–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Wong J, Fulp WJ, Strosberg JR, et al. Predictors of lymph node metastases and impact on survival in resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center experience. Am J Surg 2014;208:775–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Boninsegna L, Panzuto F, Partelli S, et al. Malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour: lymph node ratio and Ki67 are predictors of recurrence after curative resections. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:1608–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Hamilton NA, Liu TC, Cavatiao A, et al. Ki-67 predicts disease recurrence and poor prognosis in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Surgery 2012;152:107–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Birnbaum DJ, Gaujoux S, Cherif R, et al. Sporadic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: prognostic significance of incidental diagnosis. Surgery 2014;155:13–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Zhang XF, Wu Z, Cloyd J, et al. Margin status and long-term prognosis of primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor after curative resection: results from the US Neuroendocrine Tumor Study Group. Surgery 2019;165:548–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
