1. Introduction
Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from neuroendocrine cells located in endocrine glands or from diffuse neuroendocrine cells present in organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, or lungs. The incidence of these tumors has been increasing over the last few decades, reaching an age-adjusted incidence rate of 6.98 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012, according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program [
1,
2]. Among NENs, those originating from the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) system represent the majority, accounting for over 60% of diagnosed cases [
3].
The onset of NENs varies widely, with the highest incidence occurring in the sixth decade of life. However, in the context of hereditary syndromes, such as multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) or Von Hippel–Lindau disease, the diagnosis can occur much earlier [
4].
Patients with GEP-NENs often experience significant nutritional challenges due to a combination of tumor-related factors, treatment side effects, and metabolic disruptions. Both the tumor itself and the therapies used can directly affect the patient’s nutritional status, leading to malnutrition, sarcopenia, and vitamin or trace element deficiencies [
5,
6,
7,
8,
9]. According to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), malnutrition is defined as a condition resulting from inadequate intake or assimilation of nutrients, characterized by both phenotypic and etiologic criteria. The diagnosis requires at least one phenotypic criterion (such as unintentional weight loss, low body mass index, or reduced muscle mass) and one etiologic criterion (such as reduced food intake/assimilation or the presence of disease burden/inflammation) [
10].
Recent studies have highlighted the significant prevalence of nutritional disorders among patients with GEP-NENs. For instance, the NUTRIGETNE study reported that malnutrition in advanced GEP-NENs was prevalent in 61.9% of patients with advanced cancer, with low muscle mass being the most common criterion, affecting 50.9% of the cohort [
2]. These findings underscore the critical need for comprehensive nutritional assessments and interventions in this patient population to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life.
Optimizing nutritional support can improve symptom control, enhance treatment tolerability, and ultimately contribute to better clinical outcomes in patients with these challenging malignancies. In line with ESPEN recommendations for oncology patients, a multimodal approach combining individualized dietary counseling, oral nutritional supplementation, and, when indicated, enteral or parenteral nutrition is essential to address malnutrition in this setting [
11]. In selected cases of cancer-associated cachexia or refractory weight loss, emerging anabolic therapies, including selective androgen receptor modulators and investigational agents, such as ponsegromab (an anti-GDF15 monoclonal antibody targeting inflammation-driven anorexia and muscle wasting), offer promising avenues to improve nutritional status and preserve functional capacity [
12].
Nutritional deterioration in patients with GEP-NENs arises from multiple factors; however, up to 30% of cases present with hormone-related syndromes at diagnosis, further exacerbating gastrointestinal and metabolic complications [
13,
14].
The aim of this review is to comprehensively address the nutritional management of patients with functioning GEP-NENs. By examining the complex interplay between tumor biology, treatment effects, and metabolic disturbances, this review highlights the critical need for early nutritional assessment and intervention. Optimizing nutritional support can improve symptom control, enhance treatment tolerability, and ultimately contribute to better clinical outcomes in patients with these challenging malignancies [
6,
7,
15,
16].
3. VIPoma: Werner–Morrison Syndrome
3.1. Physiopathology of Malnutrition
VIPomas are rare functional neuroendocrine tumors characterized by the overproduction of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), with an estimated incidence of 0.05 to 0.2 cases per million people per year, resulting in a distinct clinical syndrome often referred to as WDHA (watery diarrhea, hypokalemia, and achlorhydria). The most prominent manifestation is severe secretory diarrhea, which may reach volumes of 6 to 8 L per day, leading to profound fluid and electrolyte losses, particularly potassium and bicarbonate. In severe cases, these pathophysiological disturbances can result in malnutrition, cachexia, and the need for parenteral fluid and nutritional support. The nutritional consequences are further exacerbated by anorexia, nausea, and generalized weakness associated with chronic electrolyte imbalances. Therefore, early and aggressive management of VIPoma-related symptoms is essential not only for hormonal control but also to prevent or reverse the rapid decline in nutritional and functional status [
27,
28,
29,
30,
31] (
Figure 2).
3.2. Nutritional and Supportive Measures
In patients with VIPomas, the cornerstone of nutritional and clinical management is the rapid correction of fluid and electrolyte imbalances, as these disturbances are the main drivers of morbidity. The profound watery secretory diarrhea caused by excessive VIP secretion leads to massive losses of potassium, bicarbonate, sodium, and fluids, resulting in hypokalemia, metabolic acidosis, and severe dehydration. These imbalances compromise not only systemic homeostasis but also digestive function, nutrient absorption, and overall oral intake. In moderate to severe cases, intravenous fluid replacement therapy with normal saline, potassium chloride, and sodium bicarbonate is essential to restore equilibrium. Nutritionally, patients may require temporary bowel rest, oral rehydration solutions, or, in more critical scenarios, parenteral nutrition or electrolyte supplementation, particularly when oral intake is insufficient or poorly tolerated [
16,
27,
29,
31,
32] (
Table 3).
As diarrhea subsides, dietary intake can progressively be reintroduced, focusing on low-residue, low-lactose, and easily digestible foods, with close monitoring and repletion of potassium, bicarbonate, magnesium, and calcium levels. Early collaboration with nutrition support teams is critical to prevent malnutrition, promote recovery, and reduce the risk of complications such as cardiac arrhythmias, weakness, or renal dysfunction related to persistent electrolyte derangement.
3.3. Medical Treatment
Medical treatment plays a central role in improving the nutritional status of patients with VIPomas, primarily through a reduction in VIP secretion and the associated severe secretory diarrhea. Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are the mainstay of therapy, achieving a reduction in diarrhea frequency and volume in approximately 65–85% of patients, which directly improves hydration, electrolyte balance, and gastrointestinal function—critical factors in preventing or reversing malnutrition. Therefore, maintenance of SSA therapy is strongly recommended even when other systemic treatments are introduced for tumor control. Among targeted therapies, sunitinib has shown variable but potentially high rates of symptomatic response (30–100%), while everolimus has demonstrated limited efficacy in VIPomas, with symptom control in fewer than 10% of cases. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 177Lu-DOTATATE has shown a symptomatic response rate of around 80% and a disease control rate of 67%, supporting its role in reducing hormone-mediated symptoms and enabling better nutritional intake. Importantly, discontinuation of long-acting SSA therapy before PRRT has been associated with rapid recurrence of severe diarrhea, warranting the use of short-acting octreotide up to the time of radiopharmaceutical administration. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains effective in many cases, with reports of both tumor and symptom control in patients with VIPoma. Additionally, glucocorticoids and interferon-alpha have been reported to improve hormonal control in select cases. By reducing symptom burden, these therapies not only help stabilize the disease but also create the necessary conditions for adequate nutrition, recovery of body weight, and prevention of further metabolic complications [
13,
28,
29,
30].
3.4. Locoregional and Surgical Therapies
Following initial clinical stabilization, surgical resection should be pursued in patients with locally confined VIPomas, as it represents the only potentially curative treatment. Complete removal of the tumor eliminates the source of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), resulting in the resolution of secretory diarrhea, restoration of fluid and electrolyte balance, and, ultimately, the normalization of gastrointestinal function. These effects directly enhance nutritional recovery, allowing for improved oral intake, nutrient absorption, and reversal of catabolic states.
In patients with unresectable metastatic disease, particularly those with dominant hepatic involvement, the therapeutic goal shifts toward tumor burden reduction and hormonal symptom control. Debulking surgery can significantly reduce VIP secretion by removing a large portion of the tumor mass, which helps alleviate persistent diarrhea and minimizes fluid and nutrient losses. Similarly, liver-directed therapies, such as transarterial embolization (TAE), radioembolization (SIRT), radiofrequency or microwave ablation, and cryoablation, have been used successfully in selected patients to control hormone output and stabilize symptoms. While not curative, these interventions support nutritional rehabilitation by improving hydration status, reducing electrolyte imbalances, and enhancing tolerance to oral or enteral feeding. In this context, integrating locoregional control strategies with medical and nutritional therapies is essential to achieving both symptom relief and metabolic recovery [
4,
13,
30,
33].
8. Conclusions
Malnutrition in patients with functioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms is a multifactorial and frequently underestimated complication that significantly impacts prognosis, quality of life, and therapeutic response. Each functional syndrome, whether carcinoid syndrome, VIPoma, glucagonoma, gastrinoma, insulinoma, or somatostatinoma, presents with a distinct constellation of hormone-related metabolic and gastrointestinal disturbances, which translates into unique nutritional challenges. From debilitating diarrhea and electrolyte loss in carcinoid syndrome and VIPoma, to the catabolic weight loss of glucagonoma, the acid-related malabsorption of gastrinoma, the paradoxical weight gain from reactive hyperphagia in insulinoma, and the complex exocrine insufficiency in somatostatinoma, the pathophysiology of malnutrition is as diverse as it is profound.
What unites these syndromes is that their nutritional deterioration stems not only from inadequate intake or malabsorption but also from hormonal dysregulation, metabolic derangement, and treatment-related toxicity. As such, nutritional support is not ancillary, but essential, and should be implemented from the time of diagnosis, not merely as a reactive measure in advanced disease. Nutritional interventions must be personalized, proactive, and dynamic, evolving in tandem with the disease course and therapeutic strategy.
Crucially, medical therapies, such as somatostatin analogs, telotristat, diazoxide, and PRRT, not only alleviate symptoms but contribute secondarily to nutritional improvement by reducing hormone secretion, stabilizing metabolism, and controlling diarrhea or hypoglycemia. Similarly, surgical resection and liver-directed therapies, even when not curative, offer the potential for functional hormone suppression, which can break the cycle of malabsorption, catabolism, and micronutrient deficiencies.
A truly effective approach to managing these patients requires integrated, multidisciplinary care, where oncology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, surgery, and clinical nutrition collaborate seamlessly. Regular assessment of nutritional status, including body composition, micronutrient levels, and functional outcomes, should become a routine part of the care pathway. Nutritional therapy should not be viewed as supportive alone but as a therapeutic axis in its own right, capable of influencing clinical outcomes, patient resilience, and long-term survival.
In conclusion, nutrition in functioning GEP-NENs is both a clinical target and a therapeutic opportunity. Understanding the syndrome-specific mechanisms of malnutrition and tailoring interventions accordingly can transform the trajectory of care, from simply treating disease to truly supporting the person living with it.