Background: Epidemiological studies show an increasing trend in the incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). A significant number of NENs occur in less common primary sites, but they are often excluded from the population-based studies. We studied the incidence trends of all NENs in Norway according to different primary sites. Materials and Methods: Our analyses were based on cancer cases diagnosed between 1993 and 2010 and reported to the national population-based Cancer Registry of Norway. A total of 65 morphological codes were identified as neuroendocrine and stratified into 3 different groups of aggressiveness: low, intermediate and high. Results: We identified 16,075 NENs of which 49.5% were in women. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years. The most common primary sites were the lung (48.1%) and the gastroenteropancreatic system (18.0%). Stage at diagnosis was local in 40.4% of the cases, regional in 17.5% and distant in 42.1%. The stage distribution was stable throughout the study period. The age-standardized (European) incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) increased from 13.3 in 1993 to 21.3 in 2010 with an estimated annual increase of 5.1% in women and 2.1% in men. The increase was most pronounced for tumors of intermediate aggressiveness from 3.3 in 1993 to 7.3 in 2010. The largest annual increases were estimated for the adrenal gland (8.8%), the pancreas (6.9%) and the lungs (6.1%). Conclusion: The incidence of NENs increased. Most primary tumors were found in the lungs or in the gastroenteropancreatic system. The increase in the incidence differed according to the primary site, gender and tumor aggressiveness.

Survival did not improve over the study period. Overall and relative 5-year survival compared favorably with that in population-based studies. Distant metastases, elevated chromogranin A levels, and advanced age were the only independent predictors of poor survival.

This article describes the care processes for a 64-year-old man with newly diagnosed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who was enrolled in a first-line clinical trial of a new immunotherapy regimen. The case highlights the concept of multiteam systems in cancer clinical research and clinical care. Because clinical research represents a highly dynamic entity-with studies frequently opening, closing, and undergoing modifications-concerted efforts of multiple teams are needed to respond to these changes while continuing to provide consistent, high-level care and timely, accurate clinical data. The case illustrates typical challenges of multiteam care processes. Compared with clinical tasks that are routinely performed by single teams, multiple-team care greatly increases the demands for communication, collaboration, cohesion, and coordination among team members. As the case illustrates, the described research team and clinical team are separated, resulting in suboptimal function. Individual team members interact predominantly with members of their own team. A considerable number of team members lack regular interaction with anyone outside their team. Accompanying this separation, the teams enact rivalries that impede collaboration. The teams have misaligned goals and competing priorities that create competition. Collective identity and cohesion across the two teams are low. Research team and clinical team members have limited knowledge of the roles and work of individuals outside their team. Recommendations to increase trust and collaboration are provided. Clinical providers and researchers may incorporate these themes into development and evaluation of multiteam systems, multidisciplinary teams, and cross-functional teams within their own institutions.