Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Colon and Rectum: Prognostic Relevance and Comparative Performance of Current Staging Systems

Background

With increasing interest in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), three staging systems for NETs of the colon and rectum have been published. Their prognostic relevance has not been examined and compared in an independent clinical database.

Methods

From the National Cancer Database (NCDB), 5457 patients diagnosed with colorectal neuroendocrine tumor (CRNETs) between 1998 and 2002 were staged according to the staging systems from (1) European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS, 2006; n = 1537); (2) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC, 2009; n = 1140); and (3) location-specific staging systems from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER, 2008; n = 942). Stage-stratified overall survival (OS) and Cox-specific concordance indices were calculated for each system. Independent prognostic factors were identified by multivariate analysis.

Results

Five-year OS for stage I, II, III, and IV CRNETs as defined by the ENETS staging system were 90.8, 77.3, 53.1, and 14.8 %, respectively. For well-differentiated CRNETs, the 5-year OS for stage I, II, III, and IV as defined by the AJCC staging system were superior: 90.6, 83.9, 64.8, and 24.9 %, respectively. Both staging systems had a concordance index of 0.72. After specifying location in the colon versus rectum, all three systems demonstrated acceptable performance. Histologic grade was a significant independent predictor of OS not currently incorporated in the staging systems.

Conclusions

The three staging systems showed comparable prognostic stratification of CRNETs, while the AJCC and ENETS systems are the most parsimonious. The current analysis supports the use of the AJCC for well-differentiated disease and ENETS systems for all CRNETs until there is further evidence for modification.     

Toward Development of Effective Custom Child Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicles

Traveling safely in motor vehicles can be challenging for many families who have young children with physical disabilities. Harnesses, simple adaptations, and special child restraint systems are available, but sometimes these devices do not adequately meet the unique postural support requirements of children with complex seating needs. Faced with no alternative, parents may choose to use the custom seating system from a wheeled mobility device to support their children in the family car. Transporting children in this way can increase the risk of motor vehicle–related injury because custom seating systems are not designed to meet the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety regulations. We studied whether assistive technology suppliers could build custom child restraint systems that met the crashworthiness requirements of a safety standard for production child restraint systems. We provided technical instructions to 10 suppliers from different parts of North America so they could each build a custom restraint system using a transit frame that we designed. This approach allowed suppliers to make custom seats that could be attached to the transit frame using special connection hardware. We crash tested the 10 custom child restraint systems to evaluate the effectiveness of our transit frame design and fabrication instructions. Six custom restraint systems met the dynamic performance requirements of the stringent Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213.3. The remaining four systems did not meet the compliance criteria due to the failure of postural belt assemblies or seat securement hardware. We recommend that future research include similar effectiveness studies to support the introduction of technical requirements for adaptive seating systems that improve occupant safety and are practical for wheelchair users, their families, and assistive technology professionals to implement.