The prognostic role of baseline CEA and CA 19-9 values and their time-dependent variations in advanced colorectal cancer patients submitted to first-line therapy.

Serum marker evaluation is an easily available prognostic indicator that may help clinicians to discriminate patients with an aggressive disease; there are few and small-sized studies exploring the prognostic role of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) values and their variations during first-line therapy, and even fewer data are available for carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9). Our aim was to analyze the role of those prognostic markers to exploit them in daily clinical practice. Data of 892 patients with marker determination before and 3 and/or 6 months during therapy were extracted from two institutional databases. Patients were grouped according to single marker variation as always negative (G0), decreasing (G1), stable (G2), or increasing (G3). We evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) of all the patents and correlated them with CEA and CA 19-9 values. A concordance between response to therapy and marker decrease was evident in 50.2% and in 34.4% of the patients for CEA and CA 19-9. Patients with low CEA or CA 19-9 baseline values had a longer PFS (15.1 vs. 10.5; 13.6 vs. 10.2 months) and OS (32.0 vs. 22.3; 30.5 vs. 20.1 months). The same results of PFS and OS were obtained by analyzing the data of the four different groups. Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent prognostic role of CEA and CA 19-9. Baseline CEA and CA 19-9 levels and their kinetics demonstrated to be independent prognostic factors. CA 19-9 dosage is not recommended; a possible role of CA 19-9 in patients with negative CEA could be worth further evaluation

Clinical Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Clinical Practice: A Formal Consensus Exercise

Many treatment approaches are now available for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). While several societies have issued guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of NENs, there are still areas of controversy for which there is limited guidance. Expert opinion can thus be of support where firm recommendations are lacking. A group of experts met to formulate 14 statements relative to diagnosis and treatment of NENs and presented herein. The nominal group and estimate-talk-estimate techniques were used. The statements covered a broad range of topics from tools for diagnosis to follow-up, evaluation of response, treatment efficacy, therapeutic sequence, and watchful waiting. Initial prognostic characterization should be based on clinical information as well as histopathological analysis and morphological and functional imaging. It is also crucial to optimize RLT for patients with a NEN starting from accurate characterization of the patient and disease. Follow-up should be patient/tumor tailored with a shared plan about timing and type of imaging procedures to use to avoid safety issues. It is also stressed that patient-reported outcomes should receive greater attention, and that a multidisciplinary approach should be mandatory. Due to the clinical heterogeneity and relative lack of definitive evidence for NENs, personalization of diagnostic–therapeutic work-up is crucial

Potential clinical value of circulating chromogranin A in patients with prostate carcinoma

n/