Clinicopathological Profile of Pure Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Esophagus: A South Indian Center Experience.

Purpose. Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the esophagus are very uncommon with only a few studies published worldwide. Studies on clinical profile, management, and outcomes are very uncommon. Methods. We report the largest single institution retrospective review of 43 patients of pure esophageal NENs out of our registry of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors treated between 2005 and 2014. Data on the incidence, tumor location, clinical symptoms, stage at presentation, grading, treatment protocol, and treatment outcomes was collected and analyzed. Results. Among 1293 cases of esophageal cancers, pure esophageal NENs were diagnosed in 43 cases. The mean patient age was 55.8 years. The male : female ratio was 1.5 : 1. 81.4% of the tumors were located in the lower third of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC; G3) accounted for the vast majority of NENs (83.7%). 53.5% patients were Stage IV and 32.5% were Stage III at presentation. The combined median survival of stages II and III patients was 18.25 months, with treatment. The median survival of treated patients with metastatic disease was 6.5 months. Conclusion. Esophageal NENs most commonly were neuroendocrine carcinomas, presented in metastatic stage and were associated with poor prognosis. Grade 2 (G2) tumors had better outcomes than NEC (G3). In nonmetastatic disease, presence of lymph node metastasis and unresectable disease had poorer outcomes.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India.

Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.