Pituitary adenomas are common intracranial tumors that are mainly considered as benign. Rarely, these tumors can exhibit an aggressive behavior, characterized by gross invasion of the surrounding tissues, resistance to conventional treatment leading to early and frequent recurrences. Even more rarely, pituitary tumors can give rise to cerebrospinal or systemic metastases qualifying as pituitary carcinomas according to the latest WHO definition. In the same classification, a subset of tumors with relatively distinct histopathological features was identified and defined as atypical adenomas designated to follow a more aggressive clinical course. This classification, although clinically useful, does not provide an accurate correlation between histopathological findings and the clinical behavior of these tumors, neither is it adequate to convey the precise features of ‘aggressive' tumors. Thus, ‘aggressive' pituitary adenomas need to be properly defined with clinical, radiological, histological and molecular markers in order to identify patients at increased risk of early recurrence or subsequent tumor progression. At present, no single marker or classification system of pituitary tumor aggressiveness exists, and clinically useful information in the literature is insufficient to guide diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Treatment of patients with aggressive pituitary tumors is challenging since conventional treatments often fail, necessitating multiple surgical procedures with additional radiotherapy. Although traditional chemotherapy applied in other neuroendocrine tumors has not been shown to be efficacious, newer agents, particularly temozolomide, have shown promising results and are currently used despite the lack of data from a randomized prospective trial. Molecular targeted therapies such as mTOR and epidermal growth factor inhibitors have also been applied and might prove to be useful in the management of these patients. In the present review, we provide information regarding the epidemiology and clinical, histopathological and molecular features of aggressive pituitary tumors using recent employed definitions. In addition, we review currently employed therapeutic means providing a therapeutic algorithm and highlight the need to identify more specific disease-related and prognostic markers and the necessity for central registration of these tumors.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms are rare tumors that display marked heterogeneity with varying natural history, biological behavior, response to therapy and prognosis. Their management is complex, particularly as a number of them may be associated with a secretory syndrome and involve a variety of options. A number of factors such as proliferation rate, degree of differentiation, functionality and extent of the disease are mostly utilized to tailor treatment accordingly, ideally in the context of a multidisciplinary team. In addition, a number of relevant scientific societies have published therapeutic guidelines in an attempt to direct and promote evidence-based treatment. Surgery remains the treatment of choice with an intention to cure while it may also be recommended in some cases of metastatic disease and difficult to control secretory syndromes. Long-acting somatostatin analogs constitute the main treatment for the majority of functioning tumors, whereas specific evolving agents such as telotristat may be used for the control of carcinoid syndrome and related sequelae. In patients with advanced disease not amenable to surgical resection, treatment options include locoregional therapies, long-acting somatostatin analogs, molecular targeted agents, radionuclides, chemotherapy and recently immunotherapy, alone or in combination. However, the ideal time of treatment initiation, sequence of administration of different therapies and identification of robust prognostic markers to select the most appropriate treatment for each individual patient still need to be defined.

Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (GI-NENs) are increasingly being recognised, while appendiceal NENs (aNENs) currently constitute the third most common GI-NEN. Appendiceal NENs are generally considered to follow an indolent course with the majority being localised at diagnosis. Thus, the initial surgical approach is not that of a planned oncological resection. Due to the localised nature of the disease in the majority of cases, subsequent biochemical and radiological assessment are not routinely recommended. Histopathological criteria (size, mesoappendiceal invasion, Ki-67 proliferation index, neuro- and angio-invasion) are mainly used to identify those patients who are also candidates for a right hemicolectomy. Goblet cell carcinoids are a distinct entity and should be treated as adenocarcinomas. Despite the absence of any substantial prospective data regarding optimal management and follow-up, recent consensus statements and guidelines have been published. The purpose of this review is to overview the published studies on the diagnosis and management of appendiceal NENs and to suggest a possible management protocol.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) arise from cells of the neuroendocrine system located in many sites amongst which most common are the gastrointestinal (GI) system and the lung. The efforts to assess the specific site of origin or predict the biological behavior of NENs is based upon a detailed study of neoplasm’s architectural pattern, immunohistochemical, genetic and molecular profile. Immunohistochemistry is used to characterize the aggressivity of NENs, by assessing the proliferation index Ki-67, as well as the neuroendocrine differentiation by assessing chromogranin A (CgA) and CD56. Basal panels of immunohistochemical markers such as CDX-2, Isl-1, TTF-1, PAX6/8 are currently being used to allocate the neoplasms, while in dubious cases new markers are investigating. Unraveling the genetic and molecular mechanisms of NENs pathogenesis along with shedding light on the molecular heterogeneity of neoplasms and the individual patterns of molecular lesions, underlining these neoplasms may provide new tools in terms of diagnostics and therapeutics. Molecular targeted therapies (MTTs) such as everolimus and sunitinib have been the first example of druggable molecular targets implicated in NENs that have been approved for NEN treatment. New investigational drugs are developing along with genetic tests that may allow the identification of the specific subset of patients that will respond to each individual MTT. Multiparametrical molecular and genetic analysis such as the NETest and the MASTER are already in trials shedding light in a step-by-step management of NENs that allow not only the selection of an appropriate therapeutic option but also the identification of response to treatment or early relapse allowing an early amendment of the strategy. Summarizing the combination of histopathological, immunohistochemical, genetic and molecular profile of a NEN opens new horizons in the efficient management of NENs.

Background: Capecitabine and temozolomide combination (CAPTEM) is associated with high response rates in patients with advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). We evaluated the real-world activity and safety of CAPTEM from 3 NEN centers. Methods: Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with CAPTEM for bulky or progressive disease (PD) were retrospectively analyzed. ­Results: Seventy-nine patients with gastroenteropancreatic (grades 1–2 [n = 38], grade 3 [n = 24]) and lung/thymic (n = 17) NENs were included. Median treatment duration was 12.1 months (range 0.6–55.6). Overall, partial responses (PRs) occurred in 23 (29.1%), stable (SD) in 24 (30.4%), and PD in 28 (35.4%) patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.1 (6–14.2) and 102.9 months (43.3–162.5), respectively. On univariate analysis, NENs naive to chemotherapy and low Ki67 were associated with favorable responses (partial response [PR] + SD; p = 0.011 and 0.045), PFS (p < 0.0001 and 0.002) and OS (p = 0.005 and 0.001). Primary site (pancreas and lung/thymus) was also a significant prognostic factor for PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, gastrointestinal and unknown primary NENs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8, p = 0.009 and p = 0.018) and prior surgery (HR 2.4, 95% CI 11–4.9, p = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Ki-67 was a poor predictor for favorable response in receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve 0.678). Safety analysis of CAPTEM indicated rare events of serious (grades 3–4) toxicities (n = 4) and low discontinuation rates (n = 8) even in patients with prolonged administration (>12 months). Conclusions: CAPTEM treatment can be an effective and safe treatment even after prolonged administration for patients with NENs of various sites and Ki67 labeling index, associated with significant favorable responses and PFS.