Literature DB >> 28494461

Accuracy of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumour Grading by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Analysis of a Large Cohort and Perspectives for Improvement.

Laure Boutsen, Anne Jouret-Mourin, Ivan Borbath, Aline van Maanen, Birgit Weynand.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Since the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System has been published in 2010, resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) are graded as grade 1 (G1), grade 2 (G2) or grade 3 (G3) using the Ki67 labelling index (Ki67-LI). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is often used for diagnosis, but few studies have assessed its value for grading. AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the Ki67-LI obtained by cytological grading (cG) with that obtained by histological grading (hG) and to assess (1) the influence of tumour size and the number of counted cells on FNA grading as well as (2) the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival based on cG.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: EUS-FNA was performed for 102 pNETs (57 resected). cG (200 cells counted) was done on all FNAs. For 29 FNAs, >2,000 cells were counted (14 resected). A comparison was made between hG and cG for the 57 resected patients. Patients were followed up until June 2016.
RESULTS: cG was consistent with hG in 39 of 57 patients with a concordance rate of 72% using a Ki67-LI cut-off of 5% for G1/G2. For Ki67-LI absolute values, the correlation was r = 0.443 and increased to r = 0.824 (p < 0.001) when only FNAs with >2,000 cells were counted. Twenty-one of 22 pNETs <2 cm had the same grading on cG and hG, whereas grading was discordant for 15 of 16 pNETs >2 cm. Thirty-eight patients died after 70.5 months of follow-up. OS for the whole cohort was 235 months and differed between cG1 (235 months), cG2 (36.3 months) and cG3 (10.9 months).
CONCLUSION: cG of pNETs is more accurate when tumours measure <2 cm and more cells are counted on FNA. Discrepancies are seen between G2 tumours which are often considered G1 on FNA due to tumour heterogeneity. EUS-FNA is valuable to distinguish between patients with good (cG1) and poor (cG3) prognosis.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; Grading; Ki67; Neuroendocrine tumour; Pancreas

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28494461     DOI: 10.1159/000477213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroendocrinology        ISSN: 0028-3835            Impact factor:   4.914


  15 in total

1.  The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Consensus Paper on the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.327

2.  Noncontrast Radiomics Approach for Predicting Grades of Nonfunctional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Yun Bian; Zengrui Zhao; Hui Jiang; Xu Fang; Jing Li; Kai Cao; Chao Ma; Shiwei Guo; Li Wang; Gang Jin; Jianping Lu; Jun Xu
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 3.  Imaging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: recent advances, current status, and controversies.

Authors:  Lingaku Lee; Tetsuhide Ito; Robert T Jensen
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 4.512

4.  Grading Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors via Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Authors:  Ammar A Javed; Alessandra Pulvirenti; Samrah Razi; Jian Zheng; Theodoros Michelakos; Yurie Sekigami; Elizabeth Thompson; David S Klimstra; Vikram Deshpande; Aatur D Singhi; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Alice C Wei; Amer H Zureikat; Cristina R Ferrone; Jin He
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 13.787

Review 5.  Prognostic factors for the outcome of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in MEN1: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  S M Sadowski; C R C Pieterman; N D Perrier; F Triponez; G D Valk
Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.678

6.  Pathology Reporting in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Digestive System: Everything You Always Wanted to Know but Were Too Afraid to Ask.

Authors:  Manuela Albertelli; Federica Grillo; Fabio Lo Calzo; Giulia Puliani; Carmen Rainone; Annamaria Anita Livia Colao; Antongiulio Faggiano
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 5.555

7.  Assessment of ARX expression, a novel biomarker for metastatic risk in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, in endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration.

Authors:  Wenzel M Hackeng; Folkert H M Morsink; Leon M G Moons; Christopher M Heaphy; G Johan A Offerhaus; Koen M A Dreijerink; Lodewijk A A Brosens
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 1.582

Review 8.  Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

Authors:  Johannes Hofland; Gregory Kaltsas; Wouter W de Herder
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 19.871

9.  Quantitative Computed Tomography Image Analysis to Predict Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Grade.

Authors:  Alessandra Pulvirenti; Rikiya Yamashita; Jayasree Chakraborty; Natally Horvat; Kenneth Seier; Caitlin A McIntyre; Sharon A Lawrence; Abhishek Midya; Maura A Koszalka; Mithat Gonen; David S Klimstra; Diane L Reidy; Peter J Allen; Richard K G Do; Amber L Simpson
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-06

10.  Differentiation of hypovascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using contrast-enhanced computed tomography.

Authors:  Shuai Ren; Xiao Chen; Zhonglan Wang; Rui Zhao; Jianhua Wang; Wenjing Cui; Zhongqiu Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.