In the period between July 2003 and December 2011, 109 histopathologically verified small intestinal NET patients were seen at the department. Patients from these two time periods will be referred to as group 1 and group 2, respectively. Patients with unknown http://www.selleckchem.com/products/chir-99021-ct99021-hcl.html primary tumour were excluded from the study.The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency.2.2. Data CollectionWe retrospectively collected data from the patients medical records into a specially designed NET database. The data comprised basic patient information as well as information from medical consultations. Basic patient information included gender, date of birth, date of diagnosis, duration of symptoms prior to diagnosis, date of first visit in the NET center, primary tumour localisation, treatment prior to referral, and date of death.

Information from medical consultations included clinical symptoms, histopathology, biochemistry, imaging results, and treatment. 2.3. StatisticsStatistical analysis was performed using SPSS 18.0. Unless otherwise specified, values are expressed as medians (range) or percentages when appropriate. We used Mann-Whitney test in between groups and chi-square for categorical variables. P values are two sided and were considered significant if less than 0.05. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and the log-rank test for comparison of groups.3. ResultsIn the period between January 1994 and June 2003, the annual incidence of histopathologically verified small intestinal NET was 0.3/100.000/year, and in the period between July 2003 and December 2011, the incidence increased to 0.

7/100.000/year. Drug_discovery We assumed that the population in the NET center catchment area was stable around 1.9 million people.Demographic and clinical data for group 1 and group 2 are shown in Table 1. There were no differences regarding gender, age, and height at diagnosis. Patients in group 1 had a significantly lower body weight than patients in group 2.Table 1Patient characteristics.Group 1 patients reported a significantly longer duration of symptoms prior to tumour diagnosis than did patients in group 2. We found no statistically significant differences in frequency of abdominal pain or symptoms related to the carcinoid syndrome, for example, diarrhea, flushing, or bronchial constriction at referral between the two groups.As shown in Table 2, the primary tumour size did not differ significantly between the two groups. The median Ki67 index was similar and low (2%) in both patient groups. Table 2Tumour characteristics.A significantly higher number of patients in group 1 than in group 2 presented with carcinomatosis at referral; however, more patients in group 2 had lymph-node metastases at referral.