Literature DB >> 27259015

A Practical Approach to the Classification of WHO Grade 3 (G3) Well-differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumor (WD-NET) and Poorly Differentiated Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (PD-NEC) of the Pancreas.

Laura H Tang1, Olca Basturk, Jillian J Sue, David S Klimstra.   

Abstract

High-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (World Health Organization [WHO] G3) of the pancreas include both well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (WD-NET) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-NEC). According to the WHO classification scheme, the diagnosis of this group of tumors is based on both the histopathology of the tumor and the assessment of proliferation fraction. However, the former can be challenging due to the lack of well-defined histologic criteria, and the latter alone (ie, >20 mitoses/10 high-power fields or Ki67>20%) may not sufficiently distinguish WD-NETs from PD-NECs. Given the considerable differences in treatment strategies and clinical outcome, additional practical modalities are required to facilitate the accurate diagnosis of high-grade pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. We examined 33 cases of WHO G3 neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas and attempted to classify them into WD-NET, small cell PD-NEC (PD-NEC-SCC), and large cell PD-NEC (PD-NEC-LCC) or to designate them as "ambiguous" when an uncertain diagnosis was rendered by any of the observers or there was any disagreement in classification among the 3 observers. To simplify the interpretation, both PD-NEC-SCC and PD-NEC-LCC were considered together as PD-NECs in the final analysis. The initial approach was to assess microscopically a single morphologically challenging hematoxylin and eosin section from each case without the knowledge of Ki67 values, performed independently by 3 pathologists to assess the degree of diagnostic concordance, and then evaluate immunohistochemical staining for surrogate biomarkers of known genotypes of WD-NET and PD-NEC, respectively, and, lastly, complete a clinicopathologic review to establish a final definitive classification. Loss of DAXX or ATRX protein expression defined WD-NET, and abnormal p53, Rb, SMAD4 expression signified PD-NEC. When the chosen section displayed an element of WD histopathology, or other tumor sections contained WHO G1/G2 components, or there had been a prior established diagnosis of a primary WD-NET, the final diagnosis was rendered as a WD-NET with high-grade (G3) progression. If a component of conventional adenocarcinoma was present (in slides not seen in the initial review), the diagnosis was established as a combined adenocarcinoma and PD-NEC. All 3 pathologists agreed on the morphologic classification of 33% of the cases (6 WD-NET, 3 PD-NEC-SCC, and 2 PD-NEC-LCC), were conflicted on 2 cases between PD-NEC-SCC and PD-NEC-LCC, and disagreed or were uncertain on the classification for the remaining 20 cases (61%), which were therefore categorized as ambiguous. In the group of cases in which all pathologists agreed on the classification, the 6 WD-NET cases had either loss of DAXX or ATRX or had evidence of a WD-NET based on additional or prior pathology slides. The 7 PD-NEC cases had abnormal expression of p53, Rb, and/or SMAD4 or a coexisting adenocarcinoma. In the ambiguous group (n=20), 14 cases were established as WD-NETs, based upon loss of DAXX or ATRX in 7 cases and additional pathology evidence of high-grade progression from WD-NET in the other 7 cases; 5 cases were established as PD-NEC based upon abnormal expression of p53, Rb, and/or SMAD4; 1 case remained undetermined with normal expression of all markers and no evidence of entity-defining histologic findings in other slides. On the basis of the final pathologic classifications, the disease-specific survival was 75 and 11 months for the WD-NET and PD-NEC groups, respectively. Thus, we conclude that morphologic diagnosis of high-grade pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms is challenging, especially when limited pathologic materials are available, and necessitates better defined criteria. The analysis of both additional sections and prior material, along with an immunohistochemical evaluation, can facilitate accurate diagnosis in the majority of cases and guide the appropriate clinical management and prognosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27259015      PMCID: PMC4988129          DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  18 in total

1.  Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Shinichi Yachida; Efsevia Vakiani; Catherine M White; Yi Zhong; Tyler Saunders; Richard Morgan; Roeland F de Wilde; Anirban Maitra; Jessica Hicks; Angelo M Demarzo; Chanjuan Shi; Rajni Sharma; Daniel Laheru; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; Ralph H Hruban; Laura H Tang; David S Klimstra; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  The high-grade (WHO G3) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor category is morphologically and biologically heterogenous and includes both well differentiated and poorly differentiated neoplasms.

Authors:  Olca Basturk; Zhaohai Yang; Laura H Tang; Ralph H Hruban; Volkan Adsay; Chad M McCall; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Kee-Taek Jang; Wendy L Frankel; Serdar Balci; Carlie Sigel; David S Klimstra
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors with a Morphologically Apparent High-Grade Component: A Pathway Distinct from Poorly Differentiated Neuroendocrine Carcinomas.

Authors:  Laura H Tang; Brian R Untch; Diane L Reidy; Eileen O'Reilly; Deepti Dhall; Lily Jih; Olca Basturk; Peter J Allen; David S Klimstra
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Molecular characteristics of colorectal neuroendocrine carcinoma; similarities with adenocarcinoma rather than neuroendocrine tumor.

Authors:  Nobuyoshi Takizawa; Yoshihiro Ohishi; Minako Hirahashi; Shunsuke Takahashi; Kazuhiko Nakamura; Masao Tanaka; Eiji Oki; Ryoichi Takayanagi; Yoshinao Oda
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 3.466

5.  DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Yuchen Jiao; Chanjuan Shi; Barish H Edil; Roeland F de Wilde; David S Klimstra; Anirban Maitra; Richard D Schulick; Laura H Tang; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael A Choti; Victor E Velculescu; Luis A Diaz; Bert Vogelstein; Kenneth W Kinzler; Ralph H Hruban; Nickolas Papadopoulos
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Alterations in the p16INK4a/cyclin D1/RB pathway in gastrointestinal tract endocrine tumors.

Authors:  Anna Fen-Yau Li; Alice Chia-Heng Li; Shyh-How Tsay; Wing-Yin Li; Wen-Yih Liang; Jeou-Yuan Chen
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.493

7.  Is nonsmall cell type high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the tubular gastrointestinal tract a distinct disease entity?

Authors:  Jinru Shia; Laura H Tang; Martin R Weiser; Baruch Brenner; N Volkan Adsay; Edward B Stelow; Leonard B Saltz; Jing Qin; Ron Landmann; Gregory D Leonard; Deepti Dhall; Larissa Temple; Jose G Guillem; Philip B Paty; David Kelsen; W Douglas Wong; David S Klimstra
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 6.394

8.  Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas: Morphology matters.

Authors:  Stefano Crippa; Stefano Partelli; Claudio Bassi; Rossana Berardi; Paola Capelli; Aldo Scarpa; Giuseppe Zamboni; Massimo Falconi
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Improved histologic and clinicopathologic criteria for prognostic evaluation of pancreatic endocrine tumors.

Authors:  Stefano La Rosa; Catherine Klersy; Silvia Uccella; Linda Dainese; Luca Albarello; Angelica Sonzogni; Claudio Doglioni; Carlo Capella; Enrico Solcia
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 3.466

10.  Are G3 ENETS neuroendocrine neoplasms heterogeneous?

Authors:  Fritz-Line Vélayoudom-Céphise; Pierre Duvillard; Lydia Foucan; Julien Hadoux; Cecile N Chougnet; Sophie Leboulleux; David Malka; Joël Guigay; Diane Goere; Thierry Debaere; Caroline Caramella; Martin Schlumberger; David Planchard; Dominique Elias; Michel Ducreux; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Eric Baudin
Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 5.678

View more
  97 in total

Review 1.  Molecular Pathology of Well-Differentiated Gastro-entero-pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Sylvia L Asa; Stefano La Rosa; Olca Basturk; Volkan Adsay; Marianna Minnetti; Ashley B Grossman
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 3.943

Review 2.  [Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the head and neck].

Authors:  B Konukiewitz; A Agaimy; W Weichert; G Klöppel
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 3.  Clinical applications of (epi)genetics in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Moving towards liquid biopsies.

Authors:  Gitta Boons; Timon Vandamme; Marc Peeters; Guy Van Camp; Ken Op de Beeck
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 6.514

4.  G3 GEP NENs category: are basic and clinical investigations well integrated?

Authors:  Massimo Milione; Nicola Fazio
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 5.  Management of Well-Differentiated High-Grade (G3) Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Mohamad Bassam Sonbol; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2019-08-19

6.  Neuroendocrine tumours in 2016: Defining rules for increasingly personalized treatments.

Authors:  Massimo Falconi; Stefano Partelli
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Comparative study of lung and extrapulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas: A SEER database analysis of 162,983 cases.

Authors:  Arvind Dasari; Kathan Mehta; Lauren A Byers; Halfdan Sorbye; James C Yao
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Everolimus in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: efficacy, side-effects, resistance, and factors affecting its place in the treatment sequence.

Authors:  Lingaku Lee; Tetsuhide Ito; Robert T Jensen
Journal:  Expert Opin Pharmacother       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.889

9.  Overexpression of ODF1 in Gastrointestinal Tract Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: a Novel Potential Immunohistochemical Biomarker for Well-differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Baicheng Li; Xinjun Li; Ruiqi Mao; Min Liu; Limei Fu; Lifang Shi; Songlin Zhao; Mingxia Fu
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 3.943

Review 10.  Classification of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors: new insights.

Authors:  Giuseppe Pelosi; Angelica Sonzogni; Sergio Harari; Adriana Albini; Enrica Bresaola; Caterina Marchiò; Federica Massa; Luisella Righi; Gaia Gatti; Nikolaos Papanikolaou; Namrata Vijayvergia; Fiorella Calabrese; Mauro Papotti
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2017-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.