Literature DB >> 25702616

Comparison of World Health Organization 2000/2004 and World Health Organization 2010 classifications for gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Esra Pasaoglu1, Nevra Dursun2, Gulzade Ozyalvacli3, Ezgi Hacihasanoglu4, Kemal Behzatoglu5, Ozden Calay6.   

Abstract

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs) were divided into 4 groups based on tumor diameter and stage in World Health Organization (WHO) 2000/2004 classification as well-differentiated endocrine tumor benign (WDETB), well-differentiated endocrine tumor with uncertain behavior (WDETUB), well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma (WDEC), and poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma (PDEC). World Health Organization 2000/2004 was not widely accepted because of stage-related classification and the category of "uncertain behavior." The European NET Society proposed a grading classification and site-specific staging system in 2010. Gastroenteropancreatic NETs were divided into 3 groups as NET grade 1 (G1), NET grade 2 (G2), and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) grade 3 (G3) based on mitoses and the Ki-67 index. We evaluated 63 GEPNET cases according to both classifications. We compared two classifications and the tumor groups in terms of prognostic parameters (diameter, mitosis, Ki-67 index, angioinvasion, perineural invasion, necrosis, and metastasis) and pathologic stage. All 14 cases diagnosed as PDEC were included in the NEC G3 according to WHO 2010. Seventeen cases were diagnosed as WDETB, 9 as WDETUB, and 23 as WDEC. There was statistically significant difference between these groups in terms of all prognostic parameters except for necrosis, mitosis, Ki-67 index, and grade. All WDETB cases, 89% of WDETUBs, and 87% of WDECs were included in the NET G1. There were 45 cases evaluated as NET G1 and 4 cases as NET G2 according to WHO 2010. Metastasis and perineural invasion were more common in NET G2, no significant differences in other parameters. In conclusion, WHO 2010 is easier to use, whereas WHO 2000/2004 shows higher correlation with prognosis. However, it includes benign and uncertain behavior categories, although small tumors with low proliferative activity can also cause metastases. All GEPNETs should be considered potentially malignant.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Classification; Gastrointestinal tract; Neuroendocrine tumor; Pancreas

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25702616     DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Diagn Pathol        ISSN: 1092-9134            Impact factor:   2.090


  19 in total

1.  Hepatic neuroendocrine tumour: Apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential marker of prognosis associated with tumour grade and overall survival.

Authors:  Ji Hye Min; Tae Wook Kang; Young Kon Kim; Seong Hyun Kim; Kyung Sook Shin; Jeong Eun Lee; Sang Yun Ha; Insuk Sohn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Neuroendocrine tumor G3: a pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor with a high proliferative rate.

Authors:  Hiroki Tanaka; Shimpei Matsusaki; Youichirou Baba; Yoshiaki Isono; Hiroaki Kumazawa; Tomohiro Sase; Hiroshi Okano; Tomonori Saito; Katsumi Mukai; Hiroshi Kaneko
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-06

3.  Sporadic Gastric Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors Have a Higher Ki-67 Proliferative Index.

Authors:  Hee Eun Lee; Taofic Mounajjed; Lori A Erickson; Tsung-Teh Wu
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.943

4.  Frequency of carcinoid syndrome at neuroendocrine tumour diagnosis: a population-based study.

Authors:  Daniel M Halperin; Chan Shen; Arvind Dasari; Ying Xu; Yiyi Chu; Shouhao Zhou; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; James C Yao
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Expression of Somatostatin Receptor Type 2A and PTEN in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Is Associated with Tumor Grade but Not with Site of Origin.

Authors:  Hideo Wada; Katsuya Matsuda; Yuko Akazawa; Yuka Yamaguchi; Shiro Miura; Nozomi Ueki; Akira Kinoshita; Koh-Ichiro Yoshiura; Hisayoshi Kondo; Masahiro Ito; Takeshi Nagayasu; Masahiro Nakashima
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.943

6.  Clinical, pathological, and demographic factors associated with development of recurrences after surgical resection in elderly patients with neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  C Shen; A Dasari; Y Chu; D M Halperin; S Zhou; Y Xu; Y T Shih; J C Yao
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Metastatic neuroendocrine tumor with metastases to the right liver in a patient with absent left portal vein.

Authors:  Reid C Mahoney; Kyrillos Awad; Gregorio Maldini
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2021-05-27

8.  Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Large Intestine: Clinicopathological Features and Predictive Factors of Lymph Node Metastasis.

Authors:  Motohiro Kojima; Koji Ikeda; Norio Saito; Naoki Sakuyama; Kenichi Koushi; Shingo Kawano; Toshiaki Watanabe; Kenichi Sugihara; Masaaki Ito; Atsushi Ochiai
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Role of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker for GEP neuroendocrine neoplasm grading.

Authors:  Elisabetta Cavalcanti; Raffaele Armentano; Anna Maria Valentini; Marcello Chieppa; Maria Lucia Caruso
Journal:  Cell Death Dis       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 8.469

10.  Treatment of a mixed acinar-endocrine carcinoma with uptake on 68Gallium-DOTATOC positron emission tomography-computed tomography: A case report.

Authors:  Anneleen De Both; Marc De Man; Roberto Troisi; Hans Van Vlierberghe; Anne Hoorens; Karen Geboes
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.967

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.