Growth hormone (GH) has been used for over 35 years, and its safety and efficacy has been studied extensively. Experimental studies showing the permissive role of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) in carcinogenesis have raised concerns regarding the safety of GH replacement in children and adults who have received treatment for cancer and those with intracranial and pituitary tumours. A consensus statement was produced to guide decision-making on GH replacement in children and adult survivors of cancer, in those treated for intracranial and pituitary tumours and in patients with increased cancer risk. With the support of the European Society of Endocrinology, the Growth Hormone Research Society convened a Workshop, where 55 international key opinion leaders representing 10 professional societies were invited to participate. This consensus statement utilized: (1) a critical review paper produced before the Workshop, (2) five plenary talks, (3) evidence-based comments from four breakout groups, and (4) discussions during report-back sessions. Current evidence reviewed from the proceedings from the Workshop does not support an association between GH replacement and primary tumour or cancer recurrence. The effect of GH replacement on secondary neoplasia risk is minor compared to host- and tumour treatment-related factors. There is no evidence for an association between GH replacement and increased mortality from cancer amongst GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors. Patients with pituitary tumour or craniopharyngioma remnants receiving GH replacement do not need to be treated or monitored differently than those not receiving GH. GH replacement might be considered in GH-deficient adult cancer survivors in remission after careful individual risk/benefit analysis. In children with cancer predisposition syndromes, GH treatment is generally contraindicated but may be considered cautiously in select patients.

Background: Improved, multimodal treatment strategies have been shown to increase cure rates in cancer patients. Those who survive cancer as a child, adolescent or young adult (CAYA), are at a higher risk for therapy-, or disease-related, late or long-term effects. The CARE for CAYA-Program has been developed to comprehensively assess any potential future problems, to offer need-based preventative interventions and thus to improve long-term outcomes in this particularly vulnerable population. Methods: The trial is designed as an adaptive trial with an annual comprehensive assessment followed by needs stratified, modular interventions, currently including physical activity, nutrition and psycho-oncology, all aimed at improving the lifestyle and/or the psychosocial situation of the patients. Patients, aged 15–39 years old, with a prior cancer diagnosis, who have completed tumour therapy and are in follow-up care, and who are tumour free, will be included. At baseline (and subsequently on an annual basis) the current medical and psychosocial situation and lifestyle of the participants will be assessed using a survey compiled of various validated questionnaires (e.g. EORTC QLQ C30, NCCN distress thermometer, PHQ-4, BSA, nutrition protocol) and objective parameters (e.g. BMI, WHR, co-morbidities like hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, diabetes), followed by basic care (psychological and lifestyle consultation). Depending on their needs, CAYAs will be allocated to preventative interventions in the above-mentioned modules over a 12-month period. After 1 year, the assessment will be repeated, and further interventions may be applied as needed. During the initial trial phase, the efficacy of this approach will be compared to standard care (waiting list with intervention in the following year) in a randomized study. During this phase, 530 CAYAs will be included and 320 eligible CAYAs who are willing to participate in the interventions will be randomly allocated to an intervention. Overall, 1500 CAYAs will be included and assessed. The programme is financed by the innovation fund of the German Federal Joint Committee and will be conducted at 14 German sites. Recruitment began in January 2018. Discussion: CAYAs are at high risk for long-term sequelae. Providing structured interventions to improve lifestyle and psychological situation may counteract against these risk factors. The programme serves to establish uniform regular comprehensive assessments and need-based interventions to improve long-term outcome in CAYA survivors. Trial registration: Registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (ID: DRKS00012504, registration date: 19th January 2018).

Background: Cranial radiotherapy (cRT) can induce hormonal deficiencies as a consequence of significant doses to the hypothalamic-pituitary (HP) axis. In contrast to profound endocrinological follow-up data from survivors of childhood cancer treated with cRT, little knowledge exists for adult cancer patients. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane library offering the basis for our debate of the relevance of HP axis impairment after cRT in adult cancer patients. Against the background of potential relevance for patients receiving whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), a particular focus was set on the temporal onset of hypopituitarism and the radiation dose to the HP axis. Results: Twenty-eight original papers with a total of 1728 patients met the inclusion criteria. Radiation doses to the HP area ranged from 4 to 97 Gray (Gy). Hypopituitarism incidences ranged from 20 to 93% for adult patients with nasopharyngeal cancer or non-pituitary brain tumors. No study focused particularly on hypopituitarism after WBRT. The onset of hypopituitarism occurred as early as within the first year following cRT (range: 3 months to 25.6 years). However, since most studies started follow-up evaluation only several years after cRT, early onset of hypopituitarism might have gone unnoticed. Conclusion: Hypopituitarism occurs frequently after cRT in adult cancer patients. Despite the general conception that it develops only after several years, onset of endocrine sequelae can occur within the first year after cRT without a clear threshold. This finding is worth debating particularly in respect of treatment options for patients with brain metastases and favorable survival prognoses.

Advancements in cancer treatment have led to increased survival rates among young adult cancer survivors (YACS). However, these individuals face unique long-term health risks, including secondary malignancies, cardiovascular disease, and psychosocial challenges. Effective long-term surveillance strategies are critical to mitigating these risks and improving health outcomes. This scoping review aims to summarize existing recommendations for long-term surveillance of YACS, identify gaps in current guidelines, and highlight areas for future research. A scoping review was conducted using Pubmed focusing on peer-reviewed literature published between January 2015 and January 2025 that addresses post-treatment (>5 years after diagnosis) follow-up strategies for YACS. The review synthesizes recommendations across various cancer types, treatment modalities, and long-term effects. The review identified 32 recommendations. Of all eligible articles initially retrieved, 169 different articles were included after screening and eligibility. Findings indicate a lack of standardized, age-specific surveillance guidelines, with most recommendations adapted from pediatric or adult oncology frameworks. Emerging evidence suggests that risk-based, personalized surveillance approaches-incorporating genetic predisposition, treatment history, and lifestyle factors-may optimize long-term health outcomes. This review underscores the need for age-appropriate, evidence-based surveillance guidelines tailored to YACS and highlights the importance of multidisciplinary care models to support survivorship. Future research should focus on developing standardized, risk-stratified surveillance protocols and evaluating their impact on health outcomes.

Surgery remains the only curative treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN). Here, we report the outcome after surgery for non-functional pNEN at a European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) center in Germany between 2000 and 2019; cases were analyzed for surgical (Clavien–Dindo classification; CDc) and oncological outcomes. Forty-nine patients (tumor grading G1 n = 25, G2 n = 22, G3 n = 2), with a median age of 56 years, were included. Severe complications (CDc ≥ grade 3b) occurred in 11 patients (22.4%) and type B/C pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) occurred in 5 patients (10.2%); in-hospital mortality was 2% (n = 1). Six of seven patients with tumor recurrence (14.3%) had G2 tumors in the pancreatic body/tail. The median survival was 5.7 years (68 months; [1–228 months]). Neither the occurrence (p = 0.683) nor the severity of complications had an influence on the relapse behavior (p = 0.086). This also applied for a POPF (≥B, p = 0.609). G2 pNEN patients (n = 22) with and without tumor recurrence had similar median tumor sizes (4 cm and 3.9 cm, respectively). Five of the six relapsed G2 patients (83.3%) had tumor-positive lymph nodes (N+); all G2 pNEN patients with recurrence had initially been treated with distal pancreatic resection. Pancreatic resections for pNEN are safe but associated with relevant postoperative morbidity. Future studies are needed to evaluate suitable resection strategies for G2 pNEN.

Background: Patient selection for lymphadenectomy remains a controversial aspect in the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), given the growing importance of parenchyma-sparing resections and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: This population-based analysis was derived from the German Cancer Registry Group during the period from 2000 to 2021. Patients with upfront resected non-functional non-metastatic pNETs were included. Results: Out of 5520 patients with pNET, 1006 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three percent of the patients were male. The median age was 64 ± 17 years. G1, G2, and G3 pNETs were found in 57%, 37%, and 7% of the patients, respectively. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) was present in 253 (24%) of all patients. LNM was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.79, CI 95% 1.21–2.64, p = 0.001) for disease-free survival (DFS). The 3-, 5-, and 10-year disease-free survival in nodal negative tumors compared to nodal positive was 82% vs. 53%, 75% vs. 38%, and 48% vs. 16%. LNM was present in 5% of T1 tumors, 25% of T2 tumors, and 49% of T3–T4 tumors. In T1 tumors, G1 was the most predominant tumor grade (80%). However, in T2 tumors, G2 and G3 represented 44% and 5% of all tumors. LNM was associated with tumors located in the pancreatic head (p < 0.001), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), tumors larger than 2 cm (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that tumor size, tumor grade, and location were independent prognostic factors associated with LNM that could potentially be used to predict LNM preoperatively. Conclusion: LNM is an independent negative prognostic factor for DFS in pNETs. Due to the low incidence of LNM in T1 tumors (5%), parenchyma-sparing surgery seems oncologically adequate in small G1 pNETs, while regional lymphadenectomy should be recommended in T2 or G2/G3 pNETs.