Title:Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors(cPNETs): a systematic review and meta-analysis of case series

Authors:Luis Hurtado-Pardo, Javier A. Cienfuegos,Miguel Ruiz-Canela, Pablo Panadero ,Alberto Benito, José Luis Hernández Lizoain

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5044/2017Link: PubMed (Epub ahead of print)

Please cite this article as:Hurtado-Pardo Luis, A. Cienfuegos Javier,Ruiz-Canela Miguel, Panadero Pablo, BenitoAlberto, Hernández Lizoain José Luis. Cysticpancreatic neuroendocrine tumors(cPNETs): a systematic review and meta-analysis of case series. Rev Esp Enferm Dig2017. doi: 10.17235/reed.2017.5044/2017.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to ourcustomers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect thecontent, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (cPNETs): a systematic review and meta-

analysis of case series

Luis Hurtado-Pardo1, Javier A. Cienfuegos1-3, Miguel Ruiz-Canela2,3, Pablo Panadero4,

Alberto Benito5 and José Luis Hernández-Lizoain1

1Department of General Surgery. Clínica Universidad de Navarra. Pamplona, Spain. 2

Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. Universidad de Navarra.

Pamplona, Spain. 3Institute of Health Research of Navarra (IdisNA). Pamplona, Spain. 4

Department of Pathology and 5Department of Radiology. Clínica Universidad de

Navarra. Pamplona, Spain

Received: 08/05/2017

Accepted: 07/08/2017

Correspondence: Javier A. Cienfuegos. Department of General Surgery. Clínica

Universidad de Navarra. University of Navarra. Av. Pío XII, 36. 31008 Pamplona, Spain

e-mail: fjacien@unav.es

No. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6767-0573.

ABSTRACT

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors represent 13% of all neuroendocrine tumors.

The aim of this study is to analyze the phenotype and biologic behavior of resected

cystic neuroendocrine tumors.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted until September 2016 using a

search in Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE with the terms “cystic pancreatic endocrine

neoplasm”, “cystic islets tumors” and “cystic islets neoplasms”.

From the 795 citations recovered 80 studies reporting on 431 patients were selected.

87.1% (n = 387) were sporadic tumors and 10.3% (n = 40) corresponded to multiple

endocrine neoplasia endocrine type 1. Were diagnosed incidentally 44.6% (n = 135).

Cytology was found to have a sensitivity of 78.5%.

Were non-functional tumors 85% (n = 338), and among the functional tumors,

insulinoma was the most frequent. According to the European Neuroendocrine Tumor

Society staging, 87.8% were limited to the pancreas (I-IIb), and 12.2% were advanced

(III-IV).

Disease-free survival at 5 years in stages (I-IIIa) and (IIIb-IV) was 91.5% and 54.2%,

respectively; and was significantly lower (p = 0.0001) in functional tumors. In patients

with multiple endocrine neoplasia there was a higher incidence of functional (62.5%)

and multifocal (28.1%) tumors. Disease-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 60%.

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors exhibit phenotypical characteristics which

are different to those of solid neuroendocrine tumors.

Key words: Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. MEN-1. Cystic tumors. Oncologic

outcomes. Evidence base medicine.

INTRODUCTION

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (cPNETs) account for between 13% and 17%

of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) and 9-10% of resected cystic tumors

(1,2).

Due to the widespread use of diagnostic methods with greater sensitivity and

specificity the incidence of such tumors has risen in recent years and has led to the

publication of cases and clinical series.

Establishing a differential diagnosis with regard to other cystic and solid lesions of the

pancreas may be difficult as in many cases cPNETs are diagnosed incidentally and

exhibit great clinical variability: functional, non-functional, sporadic or hereditary (3-5)

The aim of the present study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of

resected cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors reported in the literature, including

5 cases from our own center, with the objective of obtaining the most exhaustive

scientific knowledge on their clinical, pathologic and prognostic characteristics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The systematic review was carried out following the recommendations reported in the

“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA)

adapted to surgical series and cases (6,7).

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor was defined as any neuroendocrine tumor

which had a cystic pattern (purely cystic or mixed cystic-solid lesions) in the

macroscopic study or the imaging studies and confirmed by histology.

- Inclusion criteria: all published cases of cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

which were treated with surgery and with histologic confirmation were identified.

Non-resected tumors or those where histologic confirmation was lacking were

excluded.

- Methods use to search for and identify studies: up to 22nd September 2016, the

following databases were consulted: Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE. Studies in English,

German French and Spanish were included. A search of the “grey” literature was also

undertaken with the inclusion of cases reported at conferences, letters to the editor or

chapters in books. The search terms used were “cystic pancreatic endocrine

neoplasms”, “cystic islets tumors”, and “cystic islets neoplasms”.

The articles identified were recorded in an Excel® database and duplicates were

eliminated. In the database, the titles and abstracts of the articles were independently

reviewed by two authors (LH, JAC) in order to assess the validity and quality of the case

series. The full text of all the articles selected was printed to ensure the inclusion

criteria had been met. When doubts arose, the possible reasons for excluding the

article were discussed by the team, and a final decision was taken by consensus. If

multiple case series were published from the same center with overlapping study

periods, the publication with the largest number of cases was selected.

- Data extraction: data were extracted using a predefined protocol which included sex,

age, associated genetic disorder, symptoms, presentation type, diagnostic methods,

fine needle punction-aspiration (FNPA) cytology, size and location of the tumor, type

of surgery, post-operative complications, immunohistochemical and pathologic

characteristics, stage according to ENETS (European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society)

(8), Ki-67 grade as defined by the WHO (World Health Organization) (9), survival and

time to tumor recurrence. All data were extracted in duplicate to ensure accuracy.

Data synthesis and analysis: The continuous variables were summarized with means,

ranges and standard deviations. In the series of patients where individual patient data

were not provided, these data were not included in the analysis. Categorical variables

were analyzed using Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s exact test. To compare continuous

variables from independent samples the Student´s t-test was used or its

nonparametric equivalent, the Mann-Whitney U test. The two-sided level of

significance was set at p < 0.05.

Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to assess survival, with a significance level of p <

0.05, and using the Log-rank test to analyze differences in survival depending on

different characteristics.

All data were analyzed using Stata 12 software (StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software:

Version 12.1. College Station, TX: Stata Corp LP).

RESULTS

A total of 795 citations were identified. Once duplicate and unrelated articles had been

excluded, 96 studies were selected, from which another 5 were discarded as they did

not deal with cystic PNETs. Of the remaining 91 articles, a further 11 were excluded: 6

articles because they reported on the same series included in another article, 3 cases

because they provided no data and 2 cases in which pathologic confirmation of the

tumor was not performed. Finally, 80 studies were included, 67 isolated case reports

(10-76) and 13 case reviews (1,2,77-87). Of these 80 studies, the full text was not

available in 15, and so the relevant information was taken from the abstract. The 80

studies covered a total of 431 cases of cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Five

cases who underwent surgery in our center were also included to make a final total on

436 cPNET cases. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the articles included and reasons

for exclusion as set out in the PRISMA guidelines (6).

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the 436 patients are shown in table 1.

Of these patients 194 (50.9%) were male, and the mean age was 53.2 years (SD =

16.1). Male patients were significantly older (57.1 vs. 49.5; p = 0.001).

Genetic characteristics were reported in 387 patients: 337 patients (87.1%) were

sporadic, 40 (10.3%) had MEN-1 (multiple endocrine neoplasis type 1), 7 (1.2%) had

Von Hippel Lindau syndrome and 3 tuberous sclerosis (0.8%).

Details of the clinical presentation were obtained in 303 patients, of whom 135

(44.6%) were asymptomatic and thus corresponded to “incidentalomas”, 106 (35%)

presented with abdominal pain, 16 (15.3%) with an abdominal mass, 14 (4.6%) with

weight loss, 10 (3.3%) diabetes on diagnosis and 8 (2.6%) pancreatitis.

Data on the functionality of the tumors were available in 339 cases. In 287 cases (85%)

they were non-functional while in 52 (15.3%) they were functional: 18 insulinomas

(5.3%), 12 glucagonomas (3.5%), 10 gastrinomas (3%), 7 somatostitomas (2.1%), 3

ACTH-secreting tumors (ACTHoma) (0.9%), 1 vasoactive intestinal peptide-producing

tumor (VIPoma) (0.3%) and 1 growth hormone-producing tumor (GHoma) (0.3%).

In 196 patients a preoperative diagnosis was made using FNPA leading to a diagnosis of

endocrine tumor in 154 patients (78.6%) and inconclusive results in 20 cases (10.2%).

Tumor location was reported in 374 patients. Approximately half of the tumors, 184

(49.2%) were located in the tail, 87 (23.3%) in the head, 77 (20.6%) in the body, 7

(1.9%) in the neck and 6 (1.6%) in the uncinate process. Thirteen cases (3.5%) were

multifocal tumors. The maximum diameter reported in 193 patients was 43.8 mm (SD

= 36.5).

The type of surgical intervention was reported in 221 patients: in 28 cases (12.7%) the

procedure performed was enucleation, in 31 cases (14%) Whipple’s procedure, in 20

cases (9.1%) corporocaudal pancreatectomy, in 7 cases (3.2%) central pancreatectomy,

in 127 cases (57.5%) distal pancreatectomy, in 7 cases (3.2%) total pancreatectomy

and in 1 case marsupialization. In 18 cases the procedures were performed

laparoscopically.

Information on ENETS staging was available for 269 patients: 69 (25.7%) were stage I,

98 (36.4%) stage IIa, 69 (25.7%) stage IIb, 2 (0.7%) stage IIIa, 18 (6.7%) stage IIIb and 13

(4.8%) stage IV. Lymph node involvement was reported in 295 patients with 268 cases

(90.8%) with N0 and the remaining 27 (9.2%) with N1. Synchronous metastases were

found in 13 patients (4.6%) of the 286 for whom this information was given.

The mitotic index as defined by Ki-67 was reported in 218 of the tumors and was low in

186 (85.3%) and intermediate in 32 (14.9%). Twenty-two foci of necrosis (n = 163) and

55 foci of hemorrhage (n = 185) were identified.

Follow-up was reported in 187 cases with a mean duration of 42.5 months (SD = 30.3)

and a range of 1 to 168 months. Out of these 187 cases, there were 15 cases of relapse

(8%): 5 (2.8%) were locoregional, 4 (2.1%) distant and in 6 cases (3.2%) no location was

given. Overall survival (OS) could be obtained for 185 cases, and 4 deaths were

recorded (2.2%).

Overall survival as calculated by ENETS staging in stages I and II at 5 and 10 years was

100%. In stage III, OS at 1 and 5 years was 100% and 85.7%, respectively. In stage IV,

OS at 1 and 5 years was 100% and 75% respectively (p = 0.05). Disease-free survival

rates (DFS) at 1 and 5 years in stages I-IIIa (without lymph node involvement) were

98.5%, 91.5% and 91.5% respectively while in stages IIIb-IV (with lymph node

involvement) DFS at 1, 5 and 6 years was 100%, 54.2% y 54.2% respectively (p = 0.001)

(Fig. 2).

Analyses by specific subgroup

Functional vs. non-functional tumors

Table 2 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the 339 cases for

whom the degree of functionality was reported. We found no significant differences

regarding mean age at presentation between the two tumor types (49.2 vs. 50.3) (p =

0.896).

Of the 35 functional tumors, 12 (34.3%) corresponded to patients with MEN-1, while in

the group of 262 patients with non-functional tumors 20 were identified as having

MEN-1 (7.7%) (p = 0.001).

When location was compared, a greater proportion of multifocal tumors was found in

the functional tumor group as compared to the non-functional group: 6 multifocal

cases (17.6%) in the functional group (n = 34) as opposed to 7 multifocal cases (2.7%)

in the non-functional groups (n=260) (p = 0.016). No significant differences were found

regarding size: in the non-functional tumor group (n = 84) mean tumor size was 51mm

(SD = 46.3) in contrast with 45.8mm (SD = 31.6) in the functional tumor group (n = 27)

(p = 0.984).

Comparison of both groups with regard to ENETS staging revealed that 41 cases

(26.3%) were in stage I, 95 cases (60.9%) in stage II, 14 cases (9%) in stage III and 6

cases (3,8%) in stage IV in the non-functional group, whereas in the functional group

there were 5 cases (15%) in stage I, 17 cases (51%) in stage II, 4 cases (12%) in stage III

and 7 cases (21%) in stage IV (p = 0.007).

Overall survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.68). In contrast, when we compared

DFS in the non-functional and functional cPNET, we found that patients with non-

functional tumors had a significantly greater survival (p=0.0001) than those with

functional tumors.

MEN-1 patients

Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of the 40 cases of hereditary MEN-1. The mean

age of these 27 patients was 41.7 years (SD=15). As for the degree of functionality, 20

patients (62.5%) had non-functional tumors and 12 (38.7%) functional tumors: 5

insulinomas (15.6%), 5 gastrinomas (15.6%), 1 glucagonoma (3.1%) and 1 GHoma

(3,1%). Five cases (15.6%) were located in the head, 6 (18.8%) in the body, 12 (37.5%)

in the tail and 9 (28.1%) were multifocal. The mean diameter reported for 26 of the

patients was 40.2 mm (SD = 29.9).

According to the ENETS classification (n=26), 7 cases (26.9%) were stage I, 16 (61.5%)

stage II, 2 (7.7%) stage III and 1 (3.8) stage IV. The Ki-67 index score was low in the 18

cases for whom this information was available.

Follow-up was recorded for 25 cases, with a mean of 46.8 months (SD = 39.6) and a

range of 1 to 120 and 7 relapses (28%) and 1 death (4%) occurred.

Overall survival at 1, 5 and 10 years in this group of patients with MEN-1 was 100%,

91.7% and 91.7%, respectively. DFS at 1, 5 and 10 years was 100%, 60% and 60%,

respectively.

DISCUSSION

cPNETs account for 13-17%% of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 9-10% of

resected cystic tumors (1,2). Given their low incidence, their biological behavior is

largely unknown. Although the first reports date from 1940, such tumors were not

recognized as a specific entity until 2008 (1,88). Most cases have been reported as

isolated cases, and only 13 authors have published series with more than 10 cases (1,2,

77-87).

In the literature two well defined periods can be identified: up until 2000 reports were

of large symptomatic tumors and from 2000 onwards there was a predominance of

small tumors, diagnosed incidentally due to the use of more sensitive imaging

techniques, as a result of which there has been an increase in pancreatic

“incidentalomas” and their management has generated certain controversy (89).

On the occasion of treating 5 cases in our center, and with the aim of investigating the

phenotype and oncologic outcomes of these tumors, we performed a systematic

review and a meta-analysis of published cases.

The etiopathogenesis of cPNETs is controversial. Kamisawa et al. (62) proposed that

the slow, expansive growth of neuroendocrine tumors led to the development of a

fibrous capsule compromising blood flow to the tumors and giving rise to infarction

and central necrosis. Similarly, Buetow et al. (87) in a series of 133 pancreatic

neuroendocrine tumors concluded that the presence of cystic degeneration or necrosis

was correlated with the size of the tumor. In contrast, Iacono et al. (53) suggested that

hemorrhage is the initial event in the development of the tumor’s cystic form. Other

authors propose that cPNETs are caused by the intraductal growth of a

neuroendocrine tumor.

Furthermore, pathologic staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors was not

published until 2010 (ENETS) (8), which also led to confusion until the classification

was widely adopted.

X-ray diagnosis has low specificity as the images are similar to those of other cystic

lesions of the pancreas such as solid pseudopapillary tumors, mucinous tumors,

intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms and pancreatic metastases, among others. In

the review by Singhi et al. (1) 43% of cPNETs were wrongly diagnosed. Khashab et al.

(90) reported the diagnostic superiority of ultrasound endoscopy with an increase in

yield over computed tomography of 36% and over nuclear magnetic resonance

imaging of 54%.

In their review, Morales-Oyarvide et al. (81) reported a sensitivity of 71% using

cytology as opposed to a sensitivity of 38% when only using endoscopic ultrasound and

concluded that cytologic diagnosis with FNPA is the most appropriate diagnostic test.

In our review, we obtained similar data, with a diagnostic sensitivity when using FNPA

of 78.5%, a figure similar to that reported by Morales-Oyarvide, Chen y Kasheb

(1,79,81,90).

Although the management of cPNETs has generally been surgical, the increased

sensitivity and greater use of imaging techniques has led to a rise in the incidental

diagnosis of cPNETs, and as a result their treatment has become a matter of

controversy especially in elderly patients with a high surgical risk. The therapeutic

decision will depend on factors such as potential malignancy, life expectancy, tumor

location, the presence of symptoms and the experience of the surgeon. Ligneau et al.

(86) proposed that cPNETs should be treated with surgical resection given their

possible malignant progression.

Cloyd et al. (77) were the first to classify PNETs depending on their cystic component

and concluded that purely cystic PNETs represent a subgroup that may be monitored

clinically and radiologically without immediate resection, given their benign

progression.

In our review, we found no differences between sexes. The mean age of presentation

was 53.2 years (SD = 16.1) but was significantly higher in men (57.1 vs. 49.5; p = 0.001).

Of note, 135 cases (44.6%) were diagnosed incidentally, a figure consistent with that

from the largest series of solid tumors (3,5). Abdominal pain (35%) was the most

frequent symptom. Other phenotypical features of the tumors described are that

87.1% are sporadic and only 7.74% are hereditary and that 85% were non-functional

tumors, figures that are higher than those reported for solid tumors (1,2). Another

striking characteristic is that the size of non-functional and functional tumors was

similar (51 mm vs. 45.8 mm; p = 0.983) when it is well known that in solid tumors non-

functional tumors are generally larger. This could be due to the more rapid growth of

such tumors because of their hemorrhagic or necrotic component of cPNETs (62,91).

According to the ENETS classification, most tumors correspond to initial stages limited

to the pancreas (I, IIa and IIb), with a good prognosis following resection and a 1, 5 and

10 year DFS of 98.5%, 91.5% y 91.5%, respectively. In more advanced stages (IIIb and

IV) 1, 5 and 10 year DFS was significantly lower: 100%, 54.2% and 54.2% (p = 0.001)

(Fig. 2). The ki-67 index was low in 85.3% of cases and intermediate in 14.9%, figures

similar to those reported for solid tumors. These data confirm the prognostic value of

the ENETS and WHO classifications for cPNETs (92).

When we analyzed the series according to the degree of functionality, we observed no

differences in sex and mean age of presentation. A larger proportion of patients with

MEN-1 was observed in the functional tumor group (34.3% vs. 7.3%; p=0.001) and a

significantly greater proportion of multifocal tumors (17.6% vs. 2.6%; p=0.016) in the

functional tumor group as compared to the non-functional group. When ENETS stage

was assessed, we found a higher percentage of functional tumors in stage IV as

compared to non-functional tumors (21.2% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.007). DFS was significantly

lower in functional tumors (61.9% at 6 years) as compared with non-functional tumors

(91.7% at 5 years) (p = 0.001); which is not consistent with the experience reported for

solid neuroendocrine tumors (3,93). Perhaps these differences may be explained by

the significantly greater proportion of multifocal and MEN-1 tumors in the functional

group (p = 0.016 and p = 0.001 respectively).

cPNETs may present as sporadic tumors or in the context of hereditary tumors. The

analysis of hereditary cPNETs focused on multiple endocrine neoplasms type 1 (MEN-

1) as reports of other entities (Von-Hippel Lindau syndrome or Neurofibromatosis type

1) are anecdotal. Ligneau et al. (86) report that the phenotype of cPNETs associated

with MEN-1 syndrome is clinically and pathologically different to that of sporadic

cPNETs as they present in younger patients, with a greater percentage of functional

tumors which are multiple and generally located in the tail of the pancreas. In our

review there were no differences with regard to sex; the mean age of presentation was

41.7 years –lower than in sporadic PNETs due to the high frequency of functional

tumors and possible to the better and longer follow-up in patients with this syndrome.

The incidence of non-functional cPNET tumors in this subgroup (62.5%) is similar to

that reported in other series of patients with MEN-1, although great variability exists in

the literature (5,77,94,95). The mean size (42 mm) is not very representative as they

are surgical series they reflect the clinical guidelines to treat tumors ≥ 2 cm (5,94).

Disease-free survival in hereditary tumors was lower than that reported for sporadic

tumors due to the presence of multifocal tumors and lymph node metastases, a

finding in line with that reported by other authors (5,77,95).

We are aware of the limitations of this study such as the great heterogeneity of the

data reported in the case reports and in the case reviews and inter-study variability.

However, the information reported in case report is more accurate than in large case

reviews.

Secondly, this review only includes cases of cPNETs that were resected and

histologically confirmed, and thus the real prevalence of cPNETs may not be fully

reflected. Furthermore, the cystic morphology seems to be a marker of lower biologic

aggressiveness, reducing the number of surgical resections in this type of tumor.

Thirdly, given the size of the sample and the lack of event or loss of follow-up in the

patients, it was decided not to undertake a multivariate analysis to determine

independent associations.

In contrast to these limitations, case reports and case series are a valuable source of

information for evidence-based medicine investigating disorders which are not very

prevalent as is our case and which are not subsidiary to randomized studies (6,7,96-

99).

To our knowledge, the current review represents the largest number of patients with

cPNETs reported in the English literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are an uncommon entity which in 44.5% of

cases present incidentally. They represent an entity that is both clinically and

pathologically different to solid tumors and must be included in the differential

diagnosis of cystic lesions of the pancreas. It seems advisable to follow the same

criteria in staging and resectability (≤ 2 cm) in both sporadic and hereditary (MEN-1)

tumors. Endoscopic ultrasound in association with FNPA has a high sensitivity and

specificity.

Unlike solid tumors, functional cPNETs have a lower overall survival possibly due to the

greater incidence of MEN-1 in functional cystic neuroendocrine tumors. In functional

cPNETs, the diagnosis of MEN-1 should be ruled out.

In spite of the biologic heterogeneity of cPNETs, the pathologic classification as

established by ENETS effectively predicts long-term prognosis in these patients, which

confirms the prognostic value of this classification.

REFERENCES

1. Singhi AD, Chu LC, Tatsas AD, et al. Cystic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Am J Surg

Pathol 2012;36(11):1666-73. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31826a0048

2. Gaujoux S, Tang L, Klimstra D, et al. The outcome of resected cystic pancreatic

endocrine neoplasms: A case-matched analysis. Surgery 2012;151(4):518-25. DOI:

10.1016/j.surg.2011.09.037

3. Ellison TA, Wolfgang CL, Shi C, et al. A single institution’s 26-year experience with

nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a validation of current staging

systems and a new prognostic nomogram. Ann Surg 2014;259(2):204-12. DOI:

10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828f3174

4. Birnbaum DJ, Gaujoux S, Cherif R, et al. Sporadic nonfunctioning pancreatic

neuroendocrine tumors: prognostic significance of incidental diagnosis. Surgery

2014;155(1):13-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.08.007

5. Crippa S, Partelli S, Bassi C, et al. Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in

neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas: Morphology matters. Surgery

2016;159(3):862-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.012

6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews

and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8(5):336-41. DOI:

10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

7. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical

case report guideline development. J Diet Suppl 2013;10(4):381-90. DOI:

10.3109/19390211.2013.830679

8. Klöppel G, Rindi G, Perren A, et al. The ENETS and AJCC/UICC TNM classifications of the

neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas: a statement.

Virchows Arch 2010;456(6):595-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-010-0924-6

9. Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, et al. Validation of the 2010 WHO classification and a

new prognostic proposal: A single centre retrospective study of well-differentiated

pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Pancreatol Off J 2016;16(3):403-10. DOI:

10.1016/j.pan.2016.02.002

10. Pergolini I, Iliopoulos O, Ferrone CR, et al. Clinico-pathological features and survival of

resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors associated with von Hippel Lindau disease

and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastroenterology 2016;150(4):S1232-3. DOI:

10.1016/S0016-5085(16)34168-3

11. Amagai H, Jingu K, Kitabayashi H, et al. A case of nonfunctioning neuroendocrine tumor

of the pancreas which had difficulty in differentiation with mucinous cystic tumor.

Chiba Med J 2016;92(2):45-50.

12. Kawai G, Shirota G, Unno T WT. A case of the NET of the pancreas that was difficult to

distinguish from SPT. Japanese J Clin Radiol 2016;61(6):777-81.

13. Tsujino T, Samarasena J CK. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided, needle-based confocal laser

endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: Emerging

imaging criteria from surgical pathologic correlation in two cases. Am J Gastroenterol

2015;110(1):S107-8.

14. Lico V, Milanetto AC, Moletta L, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and ileal

carcinoid i nacromegaly. Pluriglandular association in non-MEN1 patient: a case report.

Neuroendocrinology 2015;102(1-2):151.

15. Humphrey PE, Alessandrino F, Bellizzi AM, et al. Non-hyperfunctioning pancreatic

endocrine tumors: multimodality imaging features with histopathological correlation.

Abdom Imaging 2015;40(7):2398-410. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-015-0458-0

16. Apodaca-Torrez FR, Oliveira ML, Triviño T, et al. Tumor neuroendocrino quístico no

funcionante del páncreas. Una presentación poco usual. Cir Esp 2015;93(1):43-54.

17. Welch A, McGarrity T, Mani H MM. Cystic neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas: a

rare type of pancreatic cystic lesion accurately diagnosed and staged by EUS-FNA. Pract

Gastroenterol 2013;37(10):31-4.

18. Bombardieri R, Moavero R, Roberto D, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor in a child

with a tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (TSC2) mutation. Endocr Pract 2013;19(5):e124-8.

DOI: 10.4158/EP13010.CR

19. Addeo A, Bini R, Viora T, et al. Von Hippel-Lindau and myotonic dystrophy of Steinert

along with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and renal clear cell carcinomal neoplasm:

Case report and review of the literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 2013;4(8):648-50. DOI:

10.1016/j.ijscr.2013.03.004

20. Deshmukh SD, Gulati HK, Gaopande V, et al. Incidental cystic endocrine tumor of the

pancreas: a case report with immunohistochemical study. J Cancer Res Ther

2012;8(2):289-91. DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.98992

21. Hu K-C, Chang W-H, Chu C-H, et al. Pancreatic head well-differentiated endocrine

tumor. Am J Surg 2011;201(3):e26-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.03.019

22. Potru R, Collins C S V. Rare presentation of cystic nonfunctioning pancreatic

neuroendocrine tumor: a case-series. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106(2):S219-20.

23. Baig M, Chin U, Wilhite D CH. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J

Gastroenterol 2011;106(2):S213.

24. Higashi T, Kawaguchi Y, Tsukune Y, et al. A case report of glucagon-producing multiple

pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that involved pancreatic cystic lesions.

Pancreatology 2010;10(1):70.

25. Diehl DL, Blansfield J, Li J. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Gastrointest Endosc

2010;71(6):1064-5; discussion 1065. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.12.016

26. Colović RB, Matić S V, Micev MT, et al. Two synchronous somatostatinomas of the

duodenum and pancreatic head in one patient. World J Gastroenterol

2009;15(46):5859-63. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.5859

27. Kobayashi Y, Yamao K, Sawaki A, et al. A case of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor

(NET) with atypical looking which diagnosed by EUS-FNA. Pancreas 2009;38(8):1018.

28. Basu A, Sistla SC IK. Image of the month. Arch Surg 2009;144(1):89. DOI:

10.1001/archsurg.2008.527-a

29. Kamei K, Yasuda T, Shinzaki W, et al. Cystic nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine

neoplasm presenting communication with main pancreatic duct. Dig Surg

2009;26(1):25-6. DOI: 10.1159/000193328

30. Charfi S, Marcy M, Bories E, et al. Cystic pancreatic endocrine tumors: an endoscopic

ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy study with histologic correlation.

Cancer 2009;117(3):203-10. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20024

31. Chetty R, El-Shinnawy I. Intraductal pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Endocr Pathol

2009;20(4):262-6. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-009-9093-z

32. Kongkam P, Al-Haddad M, Attasaranya S, et al. EUS and clinical characteristics of cystic

pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endoscopy 2008;40(7):602-5. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-

995740

33. Ballarin R, Masetti M, Losi L, et al. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with

uncertain malignant potential: report of two cases. Surg Today 2009;39(2):162-7. DOI:

10.1007/s00595-008-3806-7

34. Sumarac-Dumanovic M, Micic D, Krstic M, et al. Pitfalls in diagnosing a small cystic

insulinoma: a case report. J Med Case Rep 2007;1(1):181. DOI: 10.1186/1752-1947-1-

181

35. Kajiwara M, Gotohda N, Konishi M, et al. Cystic endocrine tumor of the pancreas with

an atypical multilocular appearance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14(6):586-9.

DOI: 10.1007/s00534-006-1218-x

36. Li Destri G, Reggio E, Veroux M, et al. A rare cystic non-functioning neuroendocrine

pancreatic tumor with an unusual presentation. Tumori 92(3):260-3.

37. Goh BKP, Ooi LLPJ, Tan YM, et al. Clinico-pathological features of cystic pancreatic

endocrine neoplasms and a comparison with their solid counterparts. Eur J Surg Oncol

2006;32(5):553-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.02.017

38. Tamagno G, Maffei P, Pasquali C, et al. Clinical and diagnostic aspects of cystic

insulinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005;40(12):1497-501. DOI:

10.1080/00365520510024160

39. Imaoka H, Yamao K, Salem AAS, et al. Pancreatic endocrine neoplasm can mimic serous

cystadenoma. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 2005;35(3):217-20. DOI: 10.1385/IJGC:35:3:217

40. Gerke H, Byrne MF, Xie HB, et al. A wolf in sheep’s clothing: a non-functioning islet cell

tumor of the pancreas masquerading as a microcystic (serous cystic) adenoma. JOP

2004;5(4):225-30.

41. Christein JD MK. Pancreatic somatostitoma associated with obstructive jaundice,

pancreatic and biliary Kaposi´s sarcoma in a man with neurofibromatosis. HPB

2003;5(1):49-53. DOI: 10.1080/13651820310003575

42. Vandecaveye V, Verswijvel G, Colla P, et al. Cystic insulinoma of the pancreas in a

patient with myotonic dystrophy: correlation of imaging and pathologic findings. JBR-

BTR 2003;86(5):268-71.

43. Ahrendt SA, Komorowski RA, Demeure MJ, et al. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine

tumors: is preoperative diagnosis possible? J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6(1):66-74.

44. Oberg KC, Wells K, Seraj IM, et al. ACTH-secreting islet cell tumor of the pancreas

presenting as bilateral ovarian tumors and Cushing’s syndrome. Int J Gynecol Pathol

2002;21(3):276-80. DOI: 10.1097/00004347-200207000-00012

45. Kato K, Kondo S, Ambo Y, et al. Nonfunctioning endocrine tumor of the pancreas with

extrapancreatic growth and cyst formation: report of a case. Surg Today

2000;30(7):651-4. DOI: 10.1007/s005950070107

46. Brown K, Kristopaitis T, Yong S, et al. Cystic glucagonoma: A rare variant of an

uncommon neuroendocrine pancreas tumor. J Gastrointest Surg 2(6):533-6.

47. Kotoulas C, Panayiotides J, Antiochos C, et al. Huge non-functioning pancreatic cystic

neuroendocrine tumour: a case report. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998;24(1):74-6. DOI:

10.1016/S0748-7983(98)80133-9

48. Sohaib SA, Reznek RH, Healy JC, et al. Cystic islet cell tumors of the pancreas. AJR Am J

Roentgenol 1998;170(1):217. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.170.1.9423637

49. Sarui H, Yoshimoto K, Okumura S, et al. Cystic glucagonoma with loss of heterozygosity

on chromosome 11 in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)

1997;46(4):511-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2265.1997.1380965.x

50. Zanow J, Gellert K, Benhidjeb T MJ. Cystische tumoren des pankreas. Chirurg

1996;67:719-24.

51. Goto M, Nakano I, Sumi K, et al. Cystic insulinoma and nonfunctioning islet cell tumor in

multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Pancreas 1994;9(3):393-5. DOI:

10.1097/00006676-199405000-00020

52. Weissmann D, Lewandrowski K, Godine J, et al. Pancreatic cystic islet-cell tumors.

Clinical and pathologic features in two cases with cyst fluid analysis. Int J Pancreatol

1994;15(1):75-9.

53. Iacono C, Serio G, Fugazzola C, et al. Cystic islet cell tumors of the pancreas. A clinico-

pathological report of two nonfunctioning cases and review of the literature. Int J

Pancreatol 1992;11(3):199-208. DOI: 10.1007/BF02924187

54. Yagihashi S, Yagihashi N, Nagai K. Cystic Pancreatic Glucagonoma in Contact with

Insulinoma Found in a Hypoglycemic Patient. Pathol - Res Pract 1992;188(6):751-6. DOI:

10.1016/S0344-0338(11)80173-1

55. Nojima T, Kojima T, Kato H, et al. Cystic endocrine tumor of the pancreas. Int J

Pancreatol 1991;10(1):65-72.

56. Azoulay D, Sauvanet A, Bonnichon P, et al. Non-functioning tumors of the endocrine

pancreas. Concept, diagnosis, treatment. J Chir (Paris) 1990;127(4):185-90.

57. Warshaw AL, Compton CC, Lewandrowski K, et al. Cystic tumors of the pancreas. New

clinical, radiologic, and pathologic observations in 67 patients. Ann Surg

1990;212(4):432-43-5. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199010000-00006

58. von Herbay A, Sieg B, Otto HF. Solid-cystic tumour of the pancreas. An endocrine

neoplasm? Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 1990;416(6):535-8.

59. Davtyan H, Nieberg R, Reber HA. Pancreatic cystic endocrine neoplasms. Pancreas

1990;5(2):230-3. DOI: 10.1097/00006676-199003000-00017

60. Lapeyrie H, Loizon P, Chapuis H, et al. Non-functional or silent endocrine tumors of the

pancreas. Apropos of a case of cystic form. Ann Chir 1989;43(4):302-5.

61. Yagihashi S, Sato I, Kaimori M, et al. Papillary and cystic tumor of the pancreas. Two

cases indistinguishable from islet cell tumor. Cancer 1988;61(6):1241-7. DOI:

10.1002/1097-0142(19880315)61:6<1241::AID-CNCR2820610631>3.0.CO;2-T

62. Kamisawa T, Fukayama M, Koike M, et al. A case of malignant cystic endocrine tumor of

the pancreas. Am J Gastroenterol 1987;82(1):86-9.

63. Stair JM, Schaefer RF, McCowan TC, et al. Cystic islet cell tumor of the pancreas. J Surg

Oncol 1986;32(1):46-9. DOI: 10.1002/jso.2930320113

64. Loiterman DA, Schwartz IS, Aufses AH. Cystic islet cell tumor: diagnosis and surgical

management. Mt Sinai J Med 1985;52(3):212-5.

65. Heidrich W, Kubale R, Seitz G, et al. Endocrine tumor of the pancreas--a case report on

the differential diagnosis of cystic epigastric tumors. Ultraschall Med 1986;7(3):138-40.

DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1011932

66. Pogany AC, Kerlan RK, Karam JH, et al. Cystic insulinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol

1984;142(5):951-2. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.142.5.951

67. Ho PW, Moore GW, Hoge AF. Glucagonoma occurring as a large cystic abdominal mass.

South Med J 1984;77(5):666. DOI: 10.1097/00007611-198405000-00036

68. Thompson NW, Eckhauser FE, Vinik AI, et al. Cystic neuroendocrine neoplasms of the

pancreas and liver. Ann Surg 1984;199(2):158-64. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198402000-

00004

69. Grosdidier J, Duprez J, Delfosse J, et al. Nonfunctional benign Langerhans tumor of the

cystic type. Sem Hop 1983;59(23):1773-6.

70. Frija J, Schmit P, Vadrot D, et al. Non-secreting islet cell adenoma of the pancreas

evaluated by computed tomography and sonography. Report of a case. Eur J Radiol

1982;2(2):160-1.

71. Caplan RH, Koob L, Abellera RM, et al. Cure of acromegaly by operative removal of an

islet cell tumor of the pancreas. Am J Med 1978;64(5):874-82. DOI: 10.1016/0002-

9343(78)90531-4

72. Riddle MC, Golper TA, Fletcher WS, et al. Glucagonoma syndrome in a 19-year-old

woman. West J Med 1978;129(1):68-72.

73. Deltz VE PM. Zystisches Insulom. Zbl Chir 10975;100:1521-4.

74. Winston JH. Malignant islet cell adenoma in a pancreatic cyst. Report of a case. J Natl

Med Assoc 1965;57(3):203-4.

75. Leger L, Canivet J, Mizon JP, et al. Cyst-like tumors of the islands of Langerhans.

Apropos of 2 cases. J Chir (Paris) 1967;94(1):7-20.

76. Joshi RA, Probstein JG. Benign cystic islet-cell tumor of the head of the pancreas; report

of a case probably of delta-cell origin. AMA Arch Surg 1955;71(1):74-7. DOI:

10.1001/archsurg.1955.01270130076012

77. Cloyd JM, Kopecky KE, Norton JA, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas:

Degree of cystic component predicts prognosis. Surgery 2016;160(3):708-13. DOI:

10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.005

78. Mitra V, Nayar MK, Leeds JS, et al. Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound

(EUS)/endoscopic ultrasound--fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology in solid and

cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2015;24(1):69-75.

79. Chen L, Nassar A, Kommineni VT, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle

aspiration cytology of surgically confirmed cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a

Mayo Clinic experience. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4(6):335-43. DOI:

10.1016/j.jasc.2015.04.001

80. Komminemi VT, Chen L, Zhang J, et al. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors:

Clinical and endoscopic ultrasound characteristics and accuracy of EUS-FNA. Am J

Gastroenterol 2014;109(2):S92.

81. Morales-Oyarvide V, Yoon WJ, Ingkakul T, et al. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine

tumors: The value of cytology in preoperative diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol

2014;122(6):435-44. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21403

82. Ho HC, Eloubeidi MA, Siddiqui UD, et al. Endosonographic and cyst fluid characteristics

of cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a multicentre case series. Dig Liver Dis

2013;45(9):750-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.02.021

83. Konukiewitz B, Enosawa T, Klöppel G. Glucagon expression in cystic pancreatic

neuroendocrine neoplasms: an immunohistochemical analysis. Virchows Arch

2011;458(1):47-53. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-010-0985-6

84. Boninsegna L, Partelli S, D’Innocenzio MM, et al. Pancreatic Cystic Endocrine Tumors: A

Different Morphological Entity Associated with a Less Aggressive Behavior.

Neuroendocrinology 2010;92(4):246-51. DOI: 10.1159/000318771

85. Baker MS, Knuth JL, DeWitt J, et al. Pancreatic cystic neuroendocrine tumors:

preoperative diagnosis with endoscopic ultrasound and fine-needle immunocytology. J

Gastrointest Surg 2008;12(3):450-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0219-7

86. Ligneau B, Lombard-Bohas C, Partensky C, et al. Cystic endocrine tumors of the

pancreas: clinical, radiologic, and histopathologic features in 13 cases. Am J Surg Pathol

2001;25(6):752-60. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200106000-00006

87. Buetow PC, Parrino T V, Buck JL, et al. Islet cell tumors of the pancreas: pathologic-

imaging correlation among size, necrosis and cysts, calcification, malignant behavior,

and functional status. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165(5):1175-9. DOI:

10.2214/ajr.165.5.7572498

88. Bordeianou L, Vagefi PA, Sahani D, et al. Cystic Pancreatic Endocrine Neoplasms: A

Distinct Tumor Type? J Am Coll Surg 2008;206(6):1154-8. DOI:

10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.040

89. Yang M, Ke NW, Zeng L, et al. Survival Analyses for Patients With Surgically Resected

Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors by World Health Organization 2010 Grading

Classifications and American Joint Committee on Cancer 2010 Staging Systems.

Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94(48):e2156. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002156

90. Muthusamy VR, Chandrasekhara V, Acosta RD, et al. The role of endoscopy in the

diagnosis and treatment of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc

2016;84(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.04.014

91. Iacono C, Verlato G, Ruzzenente A, et al. Systematic review of central pancreatectomy

and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 2013;100(7):873-

85. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9136

92. Koh YX, Chok AY, Zheng HL, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the

clinicopathologic characteristics of cystic versus solid pancreatic neuroendocrine

neoplasms. Surgery 2014;156(1):83-96.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.026

93. Cienfuegos JA, Rotellar F, Salguero J, et al. A single institutions 21-year experience with

surgically resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of survival and

prognostic factors. Rev Española Enfermedades Dig 2016;108(11):689-96. DOI:

10.17235/reed.2016.4323/2016

94. Thakker R V, Newey PJ, Walls G V, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for multiple

endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97(9):2990-3011.

DOI: 10.1210/jc.2012-1230

95. Kouvaraki MA, Shapiro SE, Cote GJ, et al. Management of pancreatic endocrine tumors

in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg 2006;30(5):643-53. DOI:

10.1007/s00268-006-0360-y

96. Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(2 Pt 2):330-4.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017

97. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Lee S-Y, et al. Systematic review of the methodological and

reporting quality of case series in surgery. Br J Surg 2016;103(10):1253-8. DOI:

10.1002/bjs.10235

98. Barkin JA, Barkin JS. Pancreatic cysts. Controversies, advances, diagnoses, and therapies.

Pancreas 2017;46(6).735-741 DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000831

99. Moris M, Wallace MB. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous

cystadenomas: current status and recommendations. Rev Esp Enferm Dig

2017;109(5):358-67. DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4630/2016

Table 1. Demographics and clinical characteristics of cPNETumor

Variable n (%)

Gender

- Male

- Female

194 (50,92)

187 (49,08)

Age* mean (SD) 53.2 (16.12)

Genetic disorder

- Sporadic 337 (87.1)

- MEN-1 40 (10.34)

- Von Hippel Lindau 7 (1.81)

- Tuberous sclerosis 3 (0,78)

Clinical symptoms

- Asymptomatic 135 (44.55)

- Abdominal pain 106 (34.98)

- Abdominal mass 16 (5.28)

- Weight loss 14 (4.62)

- Diabetes 10 (3.3)

- Pancreatitis 8 (2.63)

- Jaundice 5 (1.65)

- GI bleeding 3 (0.99)

- Previous pancreatitis 3 (0.99)

- Nausea/vomiting 3 (0.99)

Incidental diagnosis† 135 (44.55)

Endocrine symptoms

- Non- functioning 287 (84.66)

- Insulinoma 18 (5.31)

- Glucagonoma 12 (3.54)

- Gastrinoma 10 (2.95)

- Somatostitoma 7 (2.06)

- ACTHoma 3 (0.88)

- Vipoma 1 (0.29)

- GHRHoma 1 (0.29)

Citology-FNA‡

- Neuroendocrine 154 (78.57)

- Non-concluyent 20 (10.2)

Location

- Head 100 (26.73)

- Body 77 (20.59)

- Tail 184 (49.2)

- Multiple 13 (3.48)

Diameter (mm)§ mean (SD) 43.76 (36.48)

Necrosis 22 (13.5)

Hemorraghe 55 (29.7)

Type of surgery

- Enucleation 28 (12.67)

- Whipple 31 (14.03)

- Corporocaudal pancreatectomy 20 (9.05)

- Central pancreatectomy 7 (3.17)

- Distal pancreatectomy 127 (57.47)

- Total pancreatectomy 7 (3.17)

- Marsupialization 1 (0.45)

Ki-67 index

- Low 186 (85.32)

- Intermediate 32 (14.68)

- High 0 (0)

Stage (ENETS)

- I 69 (25.7)

- IIa 98 (36.4)

- IIb 69 (25.7)

- IIIa 2 (0.7)

- IIIb 18 (6.7)

- IV 13 (4.8)

Follow-up, monthsǁ, mean (SD) 42.49 (30.25)

Recurrence¶ 15 (8.02)

- Locoregional 5 (2.8)

- Distant 4 (2.1)

- Non-specified 6 (3.2)

Death** 5 (2.67)

*Age: n = 201. †Incidental diagnosis: n = 303. ‡Citology-FNPA: n = 196. §Diameter: n =

193. ǁFollow-up in months: n = 185. ¶Recurrence: n = 187. **Death: n = 187.

Table 2. Comparison of non-functioning and functioning cystic pancreatic

neuroendocrine tumors

Variable Non-functioning Functioning p

Gender, n (%) 0,99

- Male 135 (51.5) 18 (51.4)

- Female 49.5 (15.8) 17 (48.6)

Age* mean (SD) 49.5 (15.8) 50.3 (16.4) 0.896

Genetic disorder, n (%) 0.001

- Sporadic 240 (91.6) 23 (65.7)

- MEN-1 20 (7.7) 12 (34.3)

- Von Hippel Lindau 1 (0.4) 0 (0)

- Tuberous sclerosis 1 (0.4) 0 (0)

Location, n (%) 0.016

- Head 75 (28.8) 8 (23.5)

- Body 48 (18.5) 3 (8.8)

- Tail 130 (50) 17 (50)

- Multifocal 7 (2.6) 6 (17.6)

Mean diameter (mm)† (SD) 51 (46.3) 45.8 (31.6) 0.983

Ki-67, n (%) 1

- Low 134 (86.5) 15 (88.2)

- Intermediate 21 (13.5) 2 (11.7)

- High 0 (0) 0 (0)

Regional lymph node N, n (%) 0.003

- N0 157 (90.8) 20 (69)

- N1 16 (9.2) 9 (31)

Stage, n (%) 0.007

- I 41 (26.3) 5 (15.2)

- IIa-IIb 95 (60.9) 17 (51.5)

- IIIa-IIIb 14 (9) 4 (12.1)

- IV 6 (3.8) 7 (21.2)

*Age: functioning (n = 89), non-functioning (n = 28). †Diameter: functioning (n = 84),

non-functioning (n = 27).

Table 3. Clinical and pathological characteristics of MEN-1 related cPNET

Variable n (%)

Gender

- Male 14 (51.9)

- Female 13 (48.1)

Age*, mean (SD) 41.7 (15)

Endocrine manifestations

- Non-functioning 20 (62.5)

- Insulinoma 5 (15.6)

- Gastrinoma 5 (15.6)

- Glucagonoma 2 (3.1)

- GHRHoma 2 (3.1)

Location

- Head 5 (15.6)

- Body 6 (18.8)

- Tail 12 (37.5)

- Multifocal 9 (28.1)

Diameter (mm)†mean (SD) 40.23 (29.9)

Ki-67

- Low 18 (100)

Stage

- I 7 (26.9)

- IIa-IIb 16 (61.5)

- IIIa-IIIb 2 (7.7)

- IV 1 (3.8)

Follow-up (months)‡mean (SD) 46.8 (39.6)

Recurrence§ 7 (28)

Death** 1 (4)

*Age: n = 27. †Diameter (mm): n = 26. ‡Follow-up in months: n = 25. §Recurrence: n =

25. ǁDeath: n = 25

Fig. 1. Flow diagram for the inclusion of cases of cPNETs in the systematic review

following the PRISMA recommendations (6,7).

Fig. 2. Kaplan Meier curve for overall survival (A) and disease-free survival (B) following

the ENETS classification for cPNET tumors.

OVERALL SURVIVAL ACCORDING ENETS

DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL ACCORDING ENETS