RESUMO
Purpose: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are a heterogeneous group of low incidence neoplasms characterized by a low proliferative activity and slow growth. Their response to targeted therapies is heterogeneous and often does not lead to tumor shrinkage. Thus, evaluation of the therapeutic response should differ from other kind of tumors. Methods: To answer relevant questions about which techniques are best in the assessment of progression or treatment response a RAND/UCLA-based consensus process was implemented. Relevant clinical questions were listed followed by a systematic search of the literature. The expert panel answered all questions with recommendations, combining available evidence and expert opinion. Recommendations were validated through a questionnaire and a participatory meeting. Results: Expert recommendations regarding imaging tools for tumor assessment and evaluation of progression were agreed upon. Available imaging techniques were reviewed and recommendations for best patient monitoring practice and the best way to evaluate treatment response were formulated
No disponible
Assuntos
Humanos , Neoplasias Gastrointestinais/terapia , Tumores Neuroendócrinos/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Consenso , Padrões de Prática Médica , Progressão da Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Diagnóstico por Imagem/métodosRESUMO
PURPOSE: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are a heterogeneous group of low incidence neoplasms characterized by a low proliferative activity and slow growth. Their response to targeted therapies is heterogeneous and often does not lead to tumor shrinkage. Thus, evaluation of the therapeutic response should differ from other kind of tumors. METHODS: To answer relevant questions about which techniques are best in the assessment of progression or treatment response a RAND/UCLA-based consensus process was implemented. Relevant clinical questions were listed followed by a systematic search of the literature. The expert panel answered all questions with recommendations, combining available evidence and expert opinion. Recommendations were validated through a questionnaire and a participatory meeting. RESULTS: Expert recommendations regarding imaging tools for tumor assessment and evaluation of progression were agreed upon. Available imaging techniques were reviewed and recommendations for best patient monitoring practice and the best way to evaluate treatment response were formulated.