Vincenzo Villani1, Krishnan K Mahadevan2, Matteo Ligorio1, Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo1, David T Ting3, Francesco Sabbatino1,4, Irene Zhang5, Mark Vangel6, Soldano Ferrone1, Andrew L Warshaw1, Keith D Lillemoe1, Jennifer Wargo7, Vikram Deshpande2, Cristina R Ferrone8. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy. 5. Doctor of Medicine Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. cferrone@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is continuously evolving. Mitotic count, as measured by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or Ki67 labeling index (Ki67LI), is the best predictor of disease biology. However, both of these methods have several limitations. Phosphorylated histone H3 (PHH3), a novel mitotic marker, is potentially more accurate and easier to evaluate. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of PHH3 on patients with PNETs. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data and paraffin-embedded tissue were evaluated for 100 of the 247 PNET patients whose tumors were resected between 1998 and 2010. Mitotic counts were analyzed on H&E-, Ki67-, and PHH3-stained slides by two independent pathologists. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, Cox regression models, and time-dependent receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the prognostic power of these markers. An internal data cross-validation was performed to select the best cutoff. RESULTS: Of the 100 PNET patients resected, 53 were men. The median age of the patients was 59 years (range 19-96 years). The median follow-up period was 68 months (range 3-186 months). The median time for evaluation of an H&E- or PHH3-stained slide was 3 min, relative to 15 min for Ki67. The findings showed H&E, Ki67, and PHH3 all to be excellent predictors of disease-specific survival (DSS). However, PHH3 was superior to H&E and Ki67 in predicting both disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.006) and DSS (p = 0.001). Evaluation of the PHH3 mitotic count showed 7 mitoses per 10 high-power fields (HPFs) to be the optimal cutoff for differentiating between low- and high-risk PNET patients. CONCLUSIONS: PHH3 is a better predictor of both DFS and DSS than H&E or Ki67 in PNET. In addition, PHH3 appears to be both easier to interpret and more accurate when compared to current prognostic markers.
BACKGROUND: The staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is continuously evolving. Mitotic count, as measured by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or Ki67 labeling index (Ki67LI), is the best predictor of disease biology. However, both of these methods have several limitations. Phosphorylated histone H3 (PHH3), a novel mitotic marker, is potentially more accurate and easier to evaluate. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of PHH3 on patients with PNETs. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data and paraffin-embedded tissue were evaluated for 100 of the 247 PNET patients whose tumors were resected between 1998 and 2010. Mitotic counts were analyzed on H&E-, Ki67-, and PHH3-stained slides by two independent pathologists. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, Cox regression models, and time-dependent receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the prognostic power of these markers. An internal data cross-validation was performed to select the best cutoff. RESULTS: Of the 100 PNET patients resected, 53 were men. The median age of the patients was 59 years (range 19-96 years). The median follow-up period was 68 months (range 3-186 months). The median time for evaluation of an H&E- or PHH3-stained slide was 3 min, relative to 15 min for Ki67. The findings showed H&E, Ki67, and PHH3 all to be excellent predictors of disease-specific survival (DSS). However, PHH3 was superior to H&E and Ki67 in predicting both disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.006) and DSS (p = 0.001). Evaluation of the PHH3 mitotic count showed 7 mitoses per 10 high-power fields (HPFs) to be the optimal cutoff for differentiating between low- and high-risk PNET patients. CONCLUSIONS: PHH3 is a better predictor of both DFS and DSS than H&E or Ki67 in PNET. In addition, PHH3 appears to be both easier to interpret and more accurate when compared to current prognostic markers.
Authors: Chad M McCall; Chanjuan Shi; Toby C Cornish; David S Klimstra; Laura H Tang; Olca Basturk; Liew Jun Mun; Trevor A Ellison; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael A Choti; Richard D Schulick; Barish H Edil; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ben Lawrence; Bjorn I Gustafsson; Anthony Chan; Bernhard Svejda; Mark Kidd; Irvin M Modlin Journal: Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Koji Tsuta; Maria G Raso; Neda Kalhor; Diane D Liu; Ignacio I Wistuba; Cesar A Moran Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Teresa Ribalta; Ian E McCutcheon; Kenneth D Aldape; Janet M Bruner; Gregory N Fuller Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lei Cai; Theodoros Michelakos; Vikram Deshpande; Kshitij S Arora; Teppei Yamada; David T Ting; Marty S Taylor; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Soldano Ferrone; Cristina R Ferrone Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Min Jeong Kim; Mi Jung Kwon; Ho Suk Kang; Kyung Chan Choi; Eun Sook Nam; Seong Jin Cho; Hye-Rim Park; Soo Kee Min; Jinwon Seo; Ji-Young Choe; Hyoung-Chul Park Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Munish Puri; Shelley B Hoover; Stephen M Hewitt; Bih-Rong Wei; Hibret Amare Adissu; Charles H C Halsey; Jessica Beck; Charles Bradley; Sarah D Cramer; Amy C Durham; D Glen Esplin; Chad Frank; L Tiffany Lyle; Lawrence D McGill; Melissa D Sánchez; Paula A Schaffer; Ryan P Traslavina; Elizabeth Buza; Howard H Yang; Maxwell P Lee; Jennifer E Dwyer; R Mark Simpson Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Dordi Lea; Einar G Gudlaugsson; Ivar Skaland; Melinda Lillesand; Kjetil Søreide; Jon A Søreide Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2021-08-01