Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3–6 months, and then at 2–3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1–2-year intervals for lesions 10–20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6–12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1–2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10 For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3–6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

ENETS consensus recommendations for the standards of care in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) concerning follow-up and documentation are considered in this review. The documentation of patients with NEN should include the most relevant data characterizing an individual patient from the first contact with his/her physician/hospital until his/her last presentation during follow-up. It is advocated that follow-up occurs in specialized NEN centers with regular NEN tumor boards with expert panels. The follow-up should be in accordance with the ENETS consensus guidelines from 2011 and 2016, the present and coming WHO classification and ENETS/UICC recommendations for TNM staging. The recommendations for follow-up in patients with thymic, bronchopulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic NEN are given in Table 1. However, it should be stressed that evidence-based studies for follow-up are largely missing.

ObjectiveRecent studies have found aristaless-related homeobox gene (ARX)/pancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1 (PDX1), alpha-thalassemia/mental retardation X-linked (ATRX)/death domain-associated protein (DAXX) and alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT) to be promising prognostic biomarkers for non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-PanNETs). However, they have not been comprehensively evaluated, especially among small NF-PanNETs (≤2.0 cm). Moreover, their status in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) from other sites remains unknown.DesignAn international cohort of 1322 NETs was evaluated by immunolabelling for ARX/PDX1 and ATRX/DAXX, and telomere-specific fluorescence in situ hybridisation for ALT. This cohort included 561 primary NF-PanNETs, 107 NF-PanNET metastases and 654 primary, non-pancreatic non-functional NETs and NET metastases. The results were correlated with numerous clinicopathological features including relapse-free survival (RFS).ResultsATRX/DAXX loss and ALT were associated with several adverse prognostic findings and distant metastasis/recurrence (p<0.001). The 5-year RFS rates for patients with ATRX/DAXX-negative and ALT-positive NF-PanNETs were 40% and 42% as compared with 85% and 86% for wild-type NF-PanNETs (p<0.001 and p<0.001). Shorter 5-year RFS rates for ≤2.0 cm NF-PanNETs patients were also seen with ATRX/DAXX loss (65% vs 92%, p=0.003) and ALT (60% vs 93%, p<0.001). By multivariate analysis, ATRX/DAXX and ALT status were independent prognostic factors for RFS. Conversely, classifying NF-PanNETs by ARX/PDX1 expression did not independently correlate with RFS. Except for 4% of pulmonary carcinoids, ATRX/DAXX loss and ALT were only identified in primary (25% and 29%) and NF-PanNET metastases (62% and 71%).ConclusionsATRX/DAXX and ALT should be considered in the prognostic evaluation of NF-PanNETs including ≤2.0 cm tumours, and are highly specific for pancreatic origin among NET metastases of unknown primary.

HAE is safe, provides good control of hormonal symptoms, and prolongs survival in biochemically responsive patients. It is a valuable palliative option for patients with midgut carcinoid syndrome due to liver metastases and can be repeated in patients with a favourable response to the first procedure.