Shayna Brathwaite1, Jonathan Rock2, Martha M Yearsley2, Tanios Bekaii-Saab3, Lai Wei4, Wendy L Frankel2, John Hays3, Christina Wu3, Sherif Abdel-Misih5. 1. Department of General Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, M256 Starling Loving Hall, 320 W. 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. sherif.abdel-misih@osumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) is a rare pathologic diagnosis recently defined by the World Health Organization in 2010. Due to poor understanding of MANEC as a clinical entity, there is significant variation in the management of these patients. The purpose of our study was to characterize MANEC to develop evidence-based treatment strategies. METHODS: The Ohio State University patient database was queried for the diagnosis of MANEC and 46 patients were identified. For comparison, the database also was queried for goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) of the appendix, signet ring cell carcinoma, and carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix. Charts were then retrospectively reviewed for clinicopathologic characteristics, patient treatment, and survival data. RESULTS: The mean age of diagnosis of MANEC was 54 years. Eighty-seven percent of MANEC arose from the appendix, with 28 % of patients undergoing appendectomy and 35 % undergoing right hemicolectomy as their index operation. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for chromogranin (82 %), synaptophysin (97 %), and CD56 (67 %). Sixty-seven percent of patients presented with stage IV disease and 41 % had nodal metastases. Overall survival was 4.1 years, which was statistically significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) compared with carcinoid tumors (13.4 years), GCC (15.4 years), and signet ring carcinoma (2.2 years). CONCLUSIONS: MANEC is a more aggressive clinical entity than both GCC of the appendix and carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix. Based on these findings, we recommend patients with MANEC tumors undergo aggressive multidisciplinary cancer management and close surveillance.
BACKGROUND: Mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) is a rare pathologic diagnosis recently defined by the World Health Organization in 2010. Due to poor understanding of MANEC as a clinical entity, there is significant variation in the management of these patients. The purpose of our study was to characterize MANEC to develop evidence-based treatment strategies. METHODS: The Ohio State University patient database was queried for the diagnosis of MANEC and 46 patients were identified. For comparison, the database also was queried for goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) of the appendix, signet ring cell carcinoma, and carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix. Charts were then retrospectively reviewed for clinicopathologic characteristics, patient treatment, and survival data. RESULTS: The mean age of diagnosis of MANEC was 54 years. Eighty-seven percent of MANEC arose from the appendix, with 28 % of patients undergoing appendectomy and 35 % undergoing right hemicolectomy as their index operation. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for chromogranin (82 %), synaptophysin (97 %), and CD56 (67 %). Sixty-seven percent of patients presented with stage IV disease and 41 % had nodal metastases. Overall survival was 4.1 years, which was statistically significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) compared with carcinoid tumors (13.4 years), GCC (15.4 years), and signet ring carcinoma (2.2 years). CONCLUSIONS: MANEC is a more aggressive clinical entity than both GCC of the appendix and carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix. Based on these findings, we recommend patients with MANEC tumors undergo aggressive multidisciplinary cancer management and close surveillance.
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Manisha H Shah; Al B Benson; Emily Bergsland; Jordan D Berlin; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Lyska Emerson; Paul F Engstrom; Paul Fanta; Thomas Giordano; Whitney S Goldner; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Martin J Heslin; Fouad Kandeel; Pamela L Kunz; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Christopher Lieu; Jeffrey F Moley; Gitonga Munene; Venu G Pillarisetty; Leonard Saltz; Julie Ann Sosa; Jonathan R Strosberg; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Christopher Wolfgang; James C Yao; Jennifer Burns; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Amir Mehrvarz Sarshekeh; Shailesh Advani; Daniel M Halperin; Claudius Conrad; Chan Shen; James C Yao; Arvind Dasari Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-08-19
Authors: Zoi Tsakiraki; Alexander Delides; Vasileia Damaskou; Sofia Psarogiorgou; Ilias Athanasiadis; Aris Spathis; Evangelos Giotakis; Ioannis G Panayiotides Journal: Clin Case Rep Date: 2021-07-16
Authors: Shayna Brathwaite; Martha M Yearsley; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Lai Wei; Carl R Schmidt; Mary E Dillhoff; Wendy L Frankel; John L Hays; Christina Wu; Sherif Abdel-Misih Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Panpan Zhang; Zhongwu Li; Jie Li; Jian Li; Xiaotian Zhang; Zhihao Lu; Yu Sun; Yan Li; Jun Zhou; Xicheng Wang; Zhi Peng; Lin Shen; Ming Lu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 4.452