Preview

Malignant tumours

Advanced search

The role of somatostatin analogues in the adjuvant treatment of NETs of the stomach CT1–2N0M0, GRADE I–II, 1st clinical and morphological type: results of a single-center retrospective study

https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2025-043

Abstract

   Background: Gastric type 1 neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) are relatively indolent malignancies with low metastatic potential. Endoscopic resection (ER) is considered the primary treatment, while somatostatin analogs (SSAs) have proven anti-secretory and anti-proliferative effects. However, routine adjuvant SSA therapy after ER is not universally recommended.

   Objective: To determine whether adjuvant therapy with SSAs in patients with type 1 gNENs affects the rate of repeated endoscopic resections due to metachronous lesions.

   Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study which included patients with gNENs cT1–2N0M0, Grade I–II who underwent ER from 2007 to 2024. Two groups were compared: one received SSAs in the adjuvant setting, the other remained under observation only. Propensity score matching using a “cardinality matching” approach ensured balanced cohorts. The primary endpoint was the frequency of repeated ER. Statistical analyses were performed using Student’s t-test.

   Results: After matching, there was no statistically significant reduction in repeated ER among patients receiving SSAs (p > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference in the number of endoscopic examinations was observed between the groups.

   Conclusion: Routine adjuvant SSA therapy after ER does not appear to reduce the frequency of repeated resections in patients with type 1 gastric NENs, suggesting that such practice may be unnecessary.

About the Authors

I. N. Peregorodiev
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Ivan Nikolaevich Peregorodiev

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



E. A. Mustafazade
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Elshan Araz ogly Mustafazade

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



O. A. Malikhova
Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Olga Aleksandrovna Malikhova

125993; Build. 1, 2 / 1 Barrikadnaya St.; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



A. O. Bogdanova
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Angelina Olegovna Bogdanova

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



M. Yu. Fedyanin
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Mikhail Yurevich Fedyanin

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



V. A. Ivanov
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Valerii Anatolevich Ivanov

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



V. V. Delektorskaya
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Vera Vladimirovna Delektorskaya

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



V. Yu. Bokhyan
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Vagan Yurikovich Bokhyan

115478; 23 Kashirskoe Shosse; Moscow


Competing Interests:

The authors declare that there are no possible conflicts of interest



References

1. Fortin S.P., Johnston S.S., Schuemie M.J. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2021;21:109. doi: 10.1186/s12874–021–01282–1

2. Fykse V., Sandvik A.K., Qvigstad G., et al. Treatment of ECL cell carcinoids with octreotide LAR. Scan J Gastroenterol 2004;39(7):621–628. doi: 10.1080/00365520410005225

3. Grozinsky-Glasberg S., Kaltsas G., Gur Ch., et al. Long-acting somatostatin analogues are an effective treatment for type 1 gastric carcinoid tumours. Eur J Endocrinol 2008;159(4):475–482. doi: 10.1530/EJE-08–0420

4. Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software 2011;42(8):1–28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v042.i08

5. Manfredi S., Walter T., Baudin E., et al. Management of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours in a large French national cohort (GTE). Endocrine 2017;57(3):504–511. doi: 10.1007/s12020–017–1355–9

6. Nagtegaal I.D., Odze R.D., Klimstra D., et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020;76(2):182–188. doi: 10.1111/his.13975

7. Panzuto F., Ramage J., Pritchard D.M., et al. European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for gastroduodenal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) G1–G3. J Neuroendocrinol 2023;35(8):e13306. doi: 10.1111/jne.13306

8. Pavel M., Öberg K., Falconi M., et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020;31(7):844–860. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.304

9. Rindi G., Luinetti O., Cornaggia M., et al. Three subtypes of gastric argyrophil carcinoid and the gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study. Gastroenterology 1993;104(4):994–1006. doi: 10.1016/0016–5085(93)90266-f

10. Rossi R.E., Invernizzi P., Mazzaferro V., Massironi S., et al. Response and relapse rates after treatment with long-acting somatostatin analogs in multifocal or recurrent type-1 gastric carcinoids : A systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterology J 2019;8(2):140–147. doi: 10.1177/2050640619890465

11. Schindl M., Kaserer K., Niederle B. Treatment of gastric neuroendocrine tumors: the necessity of a type-adapted treatment. Arch Surgery 2001;136(1):49–54. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.136.1.49

12. Bergsland E. NCCN Guidelines Index Table of Contents Discussion. 2022/


Review

For citations:


Peregorodiev I.N., Mustafazade E.A., Malikhova O.A., Bogdanova A.O., Fedyanin M.Yu., Ivanov V.A., Delektorskaya V.V., Bokhyan V.Yu. The role of somatostatin analogues in the adjuvant treatment of NETs of the stomach CT1–2N0M0, GRADE I–II, 1st clinical and morphological type: results of a single-center retrospective study. Malignant tumours. 2025;15(2):40-45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2025-043

Views: 64


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2224-5057 (Print)
ISSN 2587-6813 (Online)