Literature DB >> 17686142

Endocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas: grading, tumor size and proliferation index do not predict malignant behavior.

Borislav A Alexiev1, Cinthia B Drachenberg, John C Papadimitriou.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Gastrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs) have been regarded as slow growing neoplasms with distinct morphologic characteristics that behave less aggressively than carcinomas. The malignant potential of these tumors is difficult to predict.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prognostic parameters, namely tumor size, tumor grade, and Ki-67 index in relationship to metastatic behavior of GIP ETs.
DESIGN: Biopsies and surgical specimens from 38 patients with GIP ETs were selected. The study group comprised 16 males and 22 females (mean age 62.6 years; range 24-91). Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections were stained with H&E, synaptophysin, chromogranin A, and Ki-67. Ki-67 index was evaluated using ChromaVision Automated Assisted Image Analysis software. Proliferative index was compared to tumor grade, and the degree of associations between tumor size, tumor grade, Ki-67 index and metastatic behavior of GIP ETs were evaluated.
RESULTS: Fifteen of the twenty-two (68.18%) surgically staged neoplasms presented with peritoneal dissemination, lymphogenous, and/or hematogenous metastases. Nine of the metastatic tumors were G1 (9/13, or 69.23%), 5 were G2 (5/7, or 71.42%), and 1 - G3 (1/2, or 50%). Overall, 10/15 (66.66%) metastatic tumors showed < 2% Ki-67 immunoreactivity. Four ileal ETs had a synchronous malignancy. No significant correlation was found to exist between tumor grade and Ki-67 index as well as between tumor size, tumor grade, Ki-67 index and metastatic behavior.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that tumor size, tumor grade and Ki-67 index do not accurately predict malignant behavior of GIP ETs.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 17686142      PMCID: PMC1971253          DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-2-28

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Pathol        ISSN: 1746-1596            Impact factor:   2.644


Background

For many years, tumors of the disseminated endocrine system have been referred as "carcinoids" [1-3]. Oberndorfer coined this term in 1907 for these epithelial tumors in the gut that in general have a relatively monotonous structure and are less aggressive in their behavior than carcinomas [1-6]. Factors that determine the biologic behavior of endocrine tumors are complex and multifaceted. In the WHO classification of 2000, a distinction was made between well-differentiated endocrine tumors (which show benign behavior or uncertain malignant potential), well-differentiated endocrine carcinomas (which are characterized by less aggressive malignant behavior), and poorly differentiated endocrine carcinomas of high-grade malignancy [5-10]. However, the reproducibility of this grading system and its prognostic importance has sometimes been called into question [8]. In endocrine tumors, a number of clinicopathologic criteria proved to be useful predictors of malignant behavior; these include: site of origin; tumor type; tumor size; invasion of nearby tissue or deep wall invasion; angioinvasion and invasion of perineural spaces; presence of spotty necrosis; overt cellular atypia; more than two mitoses in 10 HPFs; Ki-67 index of more than 100/10 HPFs, or more than 2%; loss of chromogranin A immunoreactivity; and nuclear p53 accumulation [4-23]. However, the predictive value of such variables remains to be proven for tumors other than those of pancreas and stomach [6]. The objective of our study is to investigate the potential utility of cell proliferation (Ki-67 index) and histopathologic grading in augmenting the histological classification and assessing biologic aggressiveness in biopsies and surgical specimens with gastrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs).

Methods

Specimens

Thirty eight patients (22 women and 16 men, age range, 24–91 years, mean 62.4) were diagnosed as having a GIP ET (Table 1) at our institution between 2003 and 2005. Material was obtained from formalin-fixed, biopsies (n = 16) or resection specimens (n = 22). Hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections were available for review in all cases. The use of paraffin blocks for this study meets Institutional Review Board and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements, and has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Maryland.
Table 1

Distribution of GIP ETs*

LocationNumber of casesNumber of cases with metastatic disease
Stomach30
Duodenum/upper jejunum103/4**
Distal jejunum/ileum107/9**
Appendix20/2**
Colon42/3**
Rectum50
Pancreas43/4**

* Gatrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs)

** Surgically staged tumors

Distribution of GIP ETs* * Gatrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs) ** Surgically staged tumors

Classification and histopathologic grading

The tumors were classified according to the World Health Organization guidelines [5]. Histopathologic grading was performed according to the previously published criteria [5,7,8]. Briefly, grade 1 (G1) ETs were characterized by a variable structure, either with insular, trabecular, acinar, diffuse or mixed patterns, and by a monomorphic cytology with low atypia and rare if any mitosis (< 2/10 HPFs). Grade 2 (G2) ETs showed focal moderate cytologic atypia with few scattered mitotic figures (2–10/10 HPFs) and spotty necrosis. Grade 3 (G3) ETs demonstrated a solid growth pattern; the tumor cells were small, round, or oat-cell-like with marked nuclear pleomorphism, brisk mitotic activity (> 10/10 HPFs) and sizable areas of tumor necrosis.

Immunohistochemical analysis

Immunostaining was performed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Briefly, four micron-thin sections were placed on the VentanaNexES autostainer (Ventana Medical Systems Inc, Tucson, Arizona) where they were treated with protease for 4 minutes and then incubated with prediluted anti-Ki-67 (Ventana, MM1, mouse monoclonal), anti-synaptophysin (CellMarque, rabbit polyclonal), and anti-chromogranin A (Ventana, LKZH10, mouse monoclonal) for 32 minutes. Recommended positive and negative controls were used. Visualization was performed using Ventana enhanced DAB detection kit. Ki-67 (MM1) stained slides were evaluated using ChromaVision Automated Quantitative Image Analysis software (objective, × 40). All tumor cell areas on the slide that stained positively were included as part of the evaluations regardless of the degree of staining. Cases with Ki-67 immunoreactivity of less than 1% were scored "0".

Statistical analysis

The chi-square test was used to test the association between tumor grade and Ki-67 index as well as between tumor grade, tumor size, Ki-67 index and metastatic behavior of GIP ETs.

Results

Of the 38 endocrine tumors, 29 were G1, 7 were G2, and 2 – G3. Fifteen of the twenty-two (68.18%) surgically staged neoplasms presented with peritoneal dissemination, lymphogeneous, and/or hematogeneous metastases (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinicopathologic data in GIP ETs*

Case No.LocationSizeGradeKi-67Metastases
1Ileum2.1 cmG18%Yes
2Colon11 cmG355%No
3Colon2.9 cmG23%Yes
4Appendix0.3 cmG11%No
5DuodenumN/AG133%N/A
6DuodenumN/AG14%N/A
7Duodenum1.3 cmG24%Yes
8Pancreas1.9 cmG22%Yes
9StomachN/AG16%N/A
10DuodenumN/AG11%N/A
11Colon3.5 cmG20%Yes
12RectumN/AG10%N/A
13Duodenum2.5 cmG10%Yes
14DuodenumN/AG10%N/A
15DuodenumN/AG13%N/A
16RectumN/AG10%N/A
17RectumN/AG10%N/A
18ColonN/AG10%N/A
19StomachN/AG13%N/A
20DuodenumN/AG11%N/A
21Ileum1.3 cmG13%No
22IleumN/AG11%N/A
23Ileum0.9 cmG10%Yes
24StomachN/AG12%N/A
25Ileum3.0 cmG10%Yes
26RectumN/AG11%N/A
27Ileum0.7 cmG11%Yes
28DuodenumN/AG13%N/A
9Pancreas16 cmG332%Yes
30Pancreas4.1 cmG22%No
31Ileum1.4 cmG11%No
32Ileum2.4 cmG10%Yes
33Duodenum1.5 cmG24%No
34Pancreas2.8 cmG13%Yes
35Duodenum4 cmG21%Yes
36Ileum1.2 cmG12%Yes
37Ileum2.5 cmG10%Yes
38Appendix1 cmG16%No

* Gastrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs)

Clinicopathologic data in GIP ETs* * Gastrointestinal and pancreatic (GIP) endocrine tumors (ETs) Nine of the metastatic tumors were G1 (9/13, or 69.23%), 5 were G2 (5/7, or 71.42%), and 1 – G3 (1/2, or 50%) (Table 3). Unexpectedly high association with metastasis was found in small (< 2 cm), G1, endocrine tumors (Table 2). The results of the automated quantitative Ki-67 immunoreactivity analysis in comparison to tumor grade and metastatic disease are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Overall, 10/15 (66.66%) metastatic tumors showed < 2% Ki-67 immunoreactivity (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). On the other hand, non-metastatic G1-3 ETs demonstrated a high Ki-67 index (Figs. 7 and 8) (Table 2). No statistically significant correlation was found to exist between tumor grade, tumor size, Ki-67 index and metastatic behavior (Tables 3, 5 and 6).
Table 3

Correlation between tumor grade and metastatic disease

GradeMetastases (+)Metastases (-)Total
G19413
G2527
G3112

Total15722

Degrees of freedom: 2

Chi-square = 0.345368916797488

For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 5.99.

The distribution is not significant.

is less than or equal to 1.

Table 4

Correlation between tumor grade and Ki-67 index

GradeKi-67 Index > 2%Ki-67 Index < 2%Total
G1101929
G2347
G3202

Total152338

* Cases with Ki-67 index of 2% were included in the < 2% category.

Degrees of freedom: 2

Chi-square = 3.40255586492468

For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 5.99.

The distribution is not significant.

is less than or equal to 0.20.

Table 5

Correlation between Ki-67% index and metastatic disease

Ki-67 IndexMetastases (+)Metastases (-)Total
> 2%549
< 2%*10313

Total15722

* Cases with Ki-67 index of 2% were included in the < 2% category.

Degrees of freedom: 1

Chi-square = 1.11925111925112

For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 3.84.

The distribution is not significant.

is less than or equal to 1.

Figure 1

Metastatic, G1 endocrine tumor involving ileal mucosa and submucosa. Note insular growth pattern. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 200.

Figure 2

Same tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Ki-67 monoclonal antibody stains nuclei of crypt epithelial and stromal cells. The tumor cells are negative. Anti-Ki-67. × 200.

Figure 3

Lymph node metastasis from G1 endocrine tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 200.

Figure 4

Lymph node metastasis from G1 endocrine tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Ki-67 monoclonal antibody stains nuclei of lymphocytes. The tumor cells are negative. Anti-Ki-67. × 200.

Figure 5

Metastatic, G2 endocrine tumor. Note anisonucleosis and focal tumor necrosis. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 400.

Figure 6

Same tumor as shown in Fig. 5. Only one tumor cell nucleus stains positive with Ki-67 monoclonal antibody. Anti-Ki 67. × 400.

Figure 7

Non-metastatic, G3 endocrine tumor. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 400.

Figure 8

Same tumor as shown in Fig. 7. Numerous tumor cell nuclei stain positive with Ki-67 monoclonal antibody. Anti-Ki-67. × 400.

Table 6

Correlation between tumor size and metastatic disease

SizeMetastases (+)Metastases (-)Total
< 2 cm*5510
> 2 cm10212

Total15722

* Tumors measuring 2 cm were includes in < 2 cm category.

Degrees of freedom: 1

Chi-square = 2.79365079365079

For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 3.84.

The distribution is not significant.

is less than or equal to 0.10.

Correlation between tumor grade and metastatic disease Degrees of freedom: 2 Chi-square = 0.345368916797488 For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 5.99. The distribution is not significant. is less than or equal to 1. Correlation between tumor grade and Ki-67 index * Cases with Ki-67 index of 2% were included in the < 2% category. Degrees of freedom: 2 Chi-square = 3.40255586492468 For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 5.99. The distribution is not significant. is less than or equal to 0.20. Correlation between Ki-67% index and metastatic disease * Cases with Ki-67 index of 2% were included in the < 2% category. Degrees of freedom: 1 Chi-square = 1.11925111925112 For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 3.84. The distribution is not significant. is less than or equal to 1. Correlation between tumor size and metastatic disease * Tumors measuring 2 cm were includes in < 2 cm category. Degrees of freedom: 1 Chi-square = 2.79365079365079 For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 3.84. The distribution is not significant. is less than or equal to 0.10. Metastatic, G1 endocrine tumor involving ileal mucosa and submucosa. Note insular growth pattern. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 200. Same tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Ki-67 monoclonal antibody stains nuclei of crypt epithelial and stromal cells. The tumor cells are negative. Anti-Ki-67. × 200. Lymph node metastasis from G1 endocrine tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 200. Lymph node metastasis from G1 endocrine tumor as shown in Fig. 1. Ki-67 monoclonal antibody stains nuclei of lymphocytes. The tumor cells are negative. Anti-Ki-67. × 200. Metastatic, G2 endocrine tumor. Note anisonucleosis and focal tumor necrosis. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 400. Same tumor as shown in Fig. 5. Only one tumor cell nucleus stains positive with Ki-67 monoclonal antibody. Anti-Ki 67. × 400. Non-metastatic, G3 endocrine tumor. Hematoxylin and eosin. × 400. Same tumor as shown in Fig. 7. Numerous tumor cell nuclei stain positive with Ki-67 monoclonal antibody. Anti-Ki-67. × 400. Four of the 22 surgically staged GIP ETs had a synchronous malignancy: one non-metastatic ileal ET with synchronous non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma, and three metastatic ileal ETs with synchronous metastatic colon and common bile duct adenocarcinomas, and non-metastatic renal cell papillary carcinoma. Both ETs, although smaller in size, showed a higher metastasis rate than the synchronous metastatic adenocarcinomas.

Discussion

For many years, GIP ETs have been regarded as slow growing neoplasms with distinct morphologic characteristics that behave less aggressively than conventional adenocarcinomas [1]. The malignant potential of endocrine tumors is difficult to predict. In this context, the latest WHO classification provides a useful framework for the evaluation of clinicopathological and functional properties of these neoplasms [6]. However, a disadvantage of the current WHO classification system is that it is not possible to evaluate some of the well known criteria for malignancy, namely the presence of metastases, and deep wall invasion or invasion of nearby tissue in biopsy specimens. Recently, attempts have been made to define histological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors that may aid in predicting the biologic behavior of GIP ETs in the context in which they commonly present to the surgical pathologist. In this context, the study by Hochwald et al [24] affirmed the clinical usefulness of a two-tiered classification of differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms into low- and intermediate-grade groups on the basis of tumor necrosis (absent or present) and mitotic rate (< 2 mitoses/50 HPFs, or > 2 mitoses/50 HPFs) [24]. Moreover, high-grade ETs were defined as neoplasms characterized by a solid growth pattern, cytologic atypia, > 10 mitoses/10 HPFs (Ki-67 index > 10%), and widespread necrosis [6,7,24]. This study investigated the histological grading, Ki-67 index, tumor size, and metastatic behavior in a group of patients with GIP ETs. The goal was to evaluate Ki-67 index using ChromaVision Automated Image Analysis software, and to determine whether histological grade, tumor size, and Ki-67 index had any bearing on metastatic behavior. We observed unexpectedly high aggressiveness (multiple lymphogenous and hematogenous metastases, and peritoneal implants) in small (< 2 cm), low-grade ETs, with low Ki-67 index. These observations are consistent with other reports [16,18,25]. In his excellent study, based on analysis of 1914 reported cases with gastrointestinal endocrine tumors, Soga [25] found a high aggressiveness in metastasis rates in both rectal and gastric small carcinoids exhibiting values significantly higher than those of small carcinomas. We did not find statistically significant correlation between tumor grade and Ki-67 index, as well as between tumor grade, tumor size, Ki-67 index and metastatic behavior of GIP ETs. These observations are in disagreement with earlier positive findings [8,11,12,15,19]. This disagreement might be explained by methodological differences, or the different antibodies employed. In this context, ChromaVision Automated Ki-67 index analysis provides superior accuracy in comparison to semi quantitative evaluation of Ki-67 positivity. Most importantly, this study shows the limitations of the current WHO classification in assessment of the metastatic behavior of GIP ETs. Thus, we were able to show that small, low-grade ETs, with low proliferative index, which met the criteria of the WHO classification criteria for benignity, behaved in a highly aggressive fashion. On the other hand large, intermediate- and high-grade, with high proliferative index ETs, which met the WHO classification criteria for malignancy, behaved in a benign fashion, i.e. without metastatic disease. Currently, we cannot explain the highly aggressive behavior of small, low-grade, with low proliferative index ETs. Previous studies suggest that tumors with a short cell cycle may grow rapidly but without necessarily manifesting numerous mitotic figures at any moment [8]. In addition, recent reports indicate that nuclear survivin and valosin-containing protein (p97) are useful prognostic factors in ETs [26,27]. The observed increased risk of synchronous malignancies in GIP ETs is consistent with previous reports [28-30]. The results illustrate the need for a thorough search for additional neoplasms in patients with ileal ETs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results suggest that tumor grade does not significantly correlate with Ki-67 index. Further, tumor grade, tumor size, and Ki-67 index do not accurately predict malignant behavior of GIP ETs.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

BAA evaluated the H&E and immunohistochemical stains, confirmed the diagnosis, designed the report and drafted the manuscript. CID and JCP provided consultation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
  29 in total

1.  Ki-67 immunoreactivity in the differential diagnosis of pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms in specimens with extensive crush artifact.

Authors:  Deniz L Aslan; H Evin Gulbahce; Stefan E Pambuccian; J Carlos Manivel; Jose Jessurun
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.493

Review 2.  Prognostic indicators for carcinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract.

Authors:  Otto Rorstad
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 3.454

3.  The significance of CD44 expression in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Chao-Han Lai; Yan-Shen Shan; Edgar D Sy; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Hung-Wen Tsai; Jenq-Chang Lee; Pin-Wen Lin
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

4.  Prognostic factors in pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: an analysis of 136 cases with a proposal for low-grade and intermediate-grade groups.

Authors:  Steven N Hochwald; Sui Zee; Kevin C Conlon; Roberto Colleoni; Otway Louie; Murray F Brennan; David S Klimstra
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Familial carcinoid tumors and subsequent cancers: a nation-wide epidemiologic study from Sweden.

Authors:  K Hemminki; X Li
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2001-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Nuclear survivin is a powerful novel prognostic marker in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor disease.

Authors:  Patricia Grabowski; Sonja Griss; Christian N Arnold; Dieter Hörsch; Rüdiger Göke; Rudolf Arnold; Berhard Heine; Harald Stein; Martin Zeitz; Hans Scherübl
Journal:  Neuroendocrinology       Date:  2005-04-04       Impact factor: 4.914

7.  Classification of low-grade neuroendocrine tumors of midgut and unknown origin.

Authors:  Susanne Van Eeden; Pascal F H J Quaedvlieg; Babs G Taal; G Johan A Offerhaus; Cornelis B H W Lamers; Marie-Louise F Van Velthuysen
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 8.  Endocrine tumors of the gut and pancreas tumor biology and classification.

Authors:  G Rindi; G Klöppel
Journal:  Neuroendocrinology       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.914

9.  Proliferative Activity in Pancreatic Endocrine Tumors: Association with Function, Metastases, and Survival.

Authors:  Martha R. Clarke; Evan E. Baker; Robert J. Weyant; Lisa Hill; Sally E. Carty
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.943

Review 10.  The gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine cell system and its tumors: the WHO classification.

Authors:  Günter Klöppel; Aurel Perren; Philipp U Heitz
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.691

View more
  7 in total

1.  RUNX1T1: a novel predictor of liver metastasis in primary pancreatic endocrine neoplasms.

Authors:  Aejaz Nasir; James Helm; Leslie Turner; Dung-Tsa Chen; Jonathan Strosberg; Naiel Hafez; Evita B Henderson-Jackson; Pamela Hodul; Marilyn M Bui; Nelly A Nasir; Ardeshir Hakam; Mokenge P Malafa; Timothy J Yeatman; Domenico Coppola; Larry K Kvols
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.327

2.  Gastric GIST with synchronous neuroendocrine tumour of the pancreas in a patient without neurofibromatosis type 1.

Authors:  Amelia Brandao Tavares; Fernando Arruda Viveiros; Cassilda Neves Cidade; Jorge Maciel
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2012-06-05

Review 3.  Predicting prognosis in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an overview and the value of Ki-67 immunostaining.

Authors:  Mina Jamali; Runjan Chetty
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.943

4.  Comparison of the prognostic values of the 2010 WHO classification, AJCC 7th edition, and ENETS classification of gastric neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Beom Su Kim; Young Soo Park; Jeong Hwan Yook; Byung-Sik Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Composite signet-ring cell/neuroendocrine carcinoma of the stomach with a metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma component: a better prognosis entity.

Authors:  Summer L Nugent; Steven C Cunningham; Borislav A Alexiev; Emily Bellavance; John C Papadimitriou; Nader Hanna
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2007-11-07       Impact factor: 2.644

6.  The relationship between lymphatic vascular density and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) expression with clinical-pathological features and survival in pancreatic adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Verônica A Zorgetto; Giórgia G Silveira; João Paulo Oliveira-Costa; Danilo F Soave; Fernando A Soares; Alfredo Ribeiro-Silva
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 2.644

7.  Clinicopathologic analysis of primary gastroenteropancreatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma; A ten year retrospective study of 68 cases at Moffit Cancer Center.

Authors:  Mulazim Hussain Bukhari; Domenico Coppola; Aejaz Nasir
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.