| Literature DB >> 27821179 |
Yoichiro Okubo1, Osamu Motohashi2, Norisuke Nakayama2, Ken Nishimura2, Rika Kasajima3, Yohei Miyagi3, Manabu Shiozawa4, Emi Yoshioka5, Masaki Suzuki5, Kota Washimi5, Kae Kawachi5, Madoka Nito6, Yoichi Kameda5, Tomoyuki Yokose5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the World Health Organization grading system for gastroenteropancreatic-neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) may not always correlate with tumor progression, it is imperative that other independent predictors of tumor progression be established. To identify such predictors, we conducted a retrospective histopathological study of hindgut NETs, obtained from endoscopic procedures, and used statistical analyses to evaluate predictive factors.Entities:
Keywords: Angiogenesis; Hindgut; Microvessel; Neuroendocrine tumor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27821179 PMCID: PMC5100185 DOI: 10.1186/s13000-016-0580-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Pathol ISSN: 1746-1596 Impact factor: 2.644
Epidemiology of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors in Japan (per 1000,000 population)
| 2010 (JAPAN) | |
|---|---|
| Overall prevalence of GI-NETs | 6.42 (95 % CI 4.50–8.34) |
| Foregut | 1.67 (95 % CI 0.94–2.40) |
| Midgut | 0.23 (95 % CI 0.18–0.28) |
| Hindgut | 4.52 (95 % CI 3.17–5.87) |
| Incidence of GI-NETs | 3.51 (95 % CI 2.50–4.53) |
| Foregut | 1.20 (95 % CI 0.48–1.91) |
| Midgut | 0.15 (95 % CI 0.12–0.18) |
| Hindgut | 2.12 (95 % CI 1.56–2.67) |
Legend: The foregut included the esophagus, stomach and duodenum; the midgut, the jejunum, ileum and vermiform appendix; and the hindgut, the large intestine and colon
GI-NET, gastrointestinal-neuroendocrine tumor; 95 % CI, 95 % confidence interval
Fig. 1Representative histopathological findings of hindgut neuroendocrine tumors. Legend: a A photomicrograph showing a low-power field of a hindgut neuroendocrine tumor (NET), with evidence of invasion of the submucosal layer (hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining; original magnification, ×20; scale bar represents 1000 μm). b A photomicrograph showing a high-power field of a hindgut NET. The tumor cells have a round-to-oval nucleus, and the nuclear atypia is relatively mild (HE staining; original magnification, ×400; scale bar represents 100 μm). c and d Among the 42 cases in our study, a positive immunoreactivity for synaptophysin was identified in 42 cases and for chromogranin A in 35 cases (immunohistochemistry, synaptophysin and chromogranin A; original magnification, ×100; scale bars represent 200 μm)
Fig. 2Representative images of venous and lymphatic invasion. Legend: a, b To determine the presence or absence of venous invasion, both EVG staining and immunohistochemistry for CD31 were performed. Venous invasion was confirmed, but no CD31-positive cells were identified. Such difficult cases were reviewed by more than two expert pathologists (EVG staining and immunohistochemistry for CD31; original magnification, ×200; scale bars represent 200 μm). c To determine the presence or absence of lymphatic invasion, immunohistochemistry for D2-40 was performed. Difficult cases were examined by more than two expert pathologists (Immunohistochemistry for D2-40; original magnification × 400; scale bar represents 100 μm)
Fig. 3Variation in microvessel density among tumors. Legend: a In this tumor, there are few CD31-positive endothelial cells and the tumor has an extremely low microvessel density. No venous invasion was observable (immunohistochemistry for CD31; original magnification, ×100, scale; bar represents 100 μm). b In this tumor, numerous CD31-positive endothelial cells were observable and the tumor has a high microvessel density. This is representative of most of cases with venous invasion (immunohistochemistry for CD31; original magnification, ×100; scale bar represents 100 μm)
Fig. 4Differences in microvessel density in tumors with and with without venous invasion. Legend: The microvessel density values of tumors with venous invasion were significantly higher than for tumors without venous invasion (*, p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U test; values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation)
Fig. 5Differences in lymphatic microvessel density in tumors with and without lymphatic invasion. Legend: The lymphatic microvessel density values of tumors with lymphatic invasion were significantly higher than for tumors without lymphatic invasion (*, p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U test; values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation)
Clinicopathological chracteristics of hindgut neuroendocrine tumor
| Age (years) | |
| Range | 37 to 81 |
| mean ± SD | 59.6 ± 12.0 |
| MVD (mm2) | |
| Range | 1.4 to 73.9 |
| mean ± SD | 17.3 ± 14.2 |
| Relationship to venous invasion | Significant positive correlation |
| LMVD (mm2) | |
| Range | 0 to 22.9 |
| mean ± SD | 6.5 ± 6.5 |
| Relationship to lymphatic invasion | Significant positive correlation |
| Gender (n, %) | |
| Male | 23, 54.8 % |
| Female | 19, 45.2 % |
| Pathological grade (n, %) | |
| NET G1 | 34, 81 % |
| NET G2 | 8, 19 % |
| Ki 67 labeling index (%) | |
| Range | 0.1 to 3.2 |
| mean ± SD | 1.1 ± 0.8 |
| Relationship to tumor diameter | No significant correlation (Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, |
| Venous invasion (n, %) | |
| Negative | 32, 76.2 % |
| Positive | 10, 23.8 % |
| Lymphatic invasion (n, %) | |
| Negative | 29, 69 % |
| Positive | 13, 31 % |
| Tumor diameter (μm) | |
| Range | 998.1 to 10046.0 |
| mean ± SD | 5058.0 ± 2410.3 |
| Relationship to MVD | Significant positive correlation |
| Relationship to LMVD | No significant correlation (Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, |
| Pathological stage (n, %) | |
| pStage I | 40, 95.2 % (all of them are pT1 and n0) |
| pStage II | 0, 0 % |
| pStage IIIB | 1, 2,4 % (lymph node metasis positive) |
| Unknown | 1, 2.4 % (margin positive) |
Legend: In this table clinicopathological characteristics and some statistical analyses of 42 hindgut neuroendocrine tumors were summarized
MVD microvessel density, LMVD lymphatic microvessel density, SD standard deviation