BACKGROUND: Primary adenocarcinomas removed by pancreatoduodenectomy originate from the duodenum (DC), ampulla (AC), distal bile duct (DBC), or pancreas (PC). Pathobiology, staging, survival, and adjuvant chemotherapy vary among these cancers. The proximity of the structures of possible origin renders it difficult to obtain a correct diagnosis, which might lead to inconsistencies in reported data and inappropriate adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Records of 207 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (1998-2009) for periampullary adenocarcinoma were reviewed. Routine histopathology reports of tumour origin performed by multiple pathologists were independently re-evaluated based on predetermined criteria by two experienced pancreatic pathologists. RESULTS: Slide review changed the diagnosis in 55 (27%) patients. After reclassification, final distribution was 29 (14%) DC, 52 (25%) AC, 57 (28%) DBC, and 69 (33%) PC. The diagnosis was revised in 4 (14%) DC, 7 (17%) AC, 30 (53%) DBC and 14 (19%) PC. The underestimation of DBC during routine histopathology was caused by misinterpretation of DBC either PC or AC. Misclassification of PC was mainly due to erroneous diagnosis of AC. Reassignment of tumour origin caused no significant changes in survival within cancer type, but resulted in a significant difference in survival between DBC and PC (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Specialist slide review resulted in reassignment of tumour origin in 27% of periampullary adenocarcinomas. Distal bile duct cancer was found to be most frequently misdiagnosed (53%). Correct diagnosis of tumour origin is crucial for data quality, appropriate adjuvant therapy, and patient inclusion in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND:Primary adenocarcinomas removed by pancreatoduodenectomy originate from the duodenum (DC), ampulla (AC), distal bile duct (DBC), or pancreas (PC). Pathobiology, staging, survival, and adjuvant chemotherapy vary among these cancers. The proximity of the structures of possible origin renders it difficult to obtain a correct diagnosis, which might lead to inconsistencies in reported data and inappropriate adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Records of 207 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (1998-2009) for periampullary adenocarcinoma were reviewed. Routine histopathology reports of tumour origin performed by multiple pathologists were independently re-evaluated based on predetermined criteria by two experienced pancreatic pathologists. RESULTS: Slide review changed the diagnosis in 55 (27%) patients. After reclassification, final distribution was 29 (14%) DC, 52 (25%) AC, 57 (28%) DBC, and 69 (33%) PC. The diagnosis was revised in 4 (14%) DC, 7 (17%) AC, 30 (53%) DBC and 14 (19%) PC. The underestimation of DBC during routine histopathology was caused by misinterpretation of DBC either PC or AC. Misclassification of PC was mainly due to erroneous diagnosis of AC. Reassignment of tumour origin caused no significant changes in survival within cancer type, but resulted in a significant difference in survival between DBC and PC (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Specialist slide review resulted in reassignment of tumour origin in 27% of periampullary adenocarcinomas. Distal bile duct cancer was found to be most frequently misdiagnosed (53%). Correct diagnosis of tumour origin is crucial for data quality, appropriate adjuvant therapy, and patient inclusion in clinical trials.
Authors: Michelle D Reid; Serdar Balci; Nobuyuki Ohike; Yue Xue; Grace E Kim; Takuma Tajiri; Bahar Memis; Ipek Coban; Anil Dolgun; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Olca Basturk; David A Kooby; Juan M Sarmiento; Shishir K Maithel; Bassel F El-Rayes; Volkan Adsay Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Bassem Amr; Golnaz Shahtahmassebi; Christopher D Briggs; Matthew J Bowles; Somaiah Aroori; David A Stell Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Peter Bronsert; Ilona Kohler; Martin Werner; Frank Makowiec; Simon Kuesters; Jens Hoeppner; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Tobias Keck; Dirk Bausch; Ulrich Friedrich Wellner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-09-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Susanna W L de Geus; Leonora S F Boogerd; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; J Sven D Mieog; Willemieke S F J Tummers; Hendrica A J M Prevoo; Cornelis F M Sier; Hans Morreau; Bert A Bonsing; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Khadija El Jellas; Dag Hoem; Kristin G Hagen; May Britt Kalvenes; Sura Aziz; Solrun J Steine; Heike Immervoll; Stefan Johansson; Anders Molven Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Zon Weng Lai; Louisa Bolm; Hannah Fuellgraf; Martin L Biniossek; Frank Makowiec; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Martin Werner; Tobias Keck; Dirk Bausch; Claudio Sorio; Aldo Scarpa; Oliver Schilling; Peter Bronsert; Ulrich Friedrich Wellner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 4.430