Kendall J Keck1, Allen Choi1, Jessica E Maxwell1, Guiying Li1, Thomas M O'Dorisio2, Patrick Breheny3, Andrew M Bellizzi4, James R Howe5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. james-howe@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor grade is an important predictor of survival in gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), as determined by Ki-67 expression and mitotic rate. NETs generally grow indolently, but some cells may acquire traits facilitating metastasis. It is unclear how frequently metastases differ in grade from their primary tumors, and whether increasing grade in metastases affects prognosis. METHODS: Ki-67 immunohistochemistry was performed on resected GEPNET specimens and cases with results for both primary tumors and concurrent metastases were identified. Grade was determined using a modified World Health Organization classification (Ki-67: G1 = 0-2%; G2 > 2-20%; G3 > 20%). RESULTS: Ki-67 was performed on both the primary tumor and metastases in 103 patients. Tumor grade was higher in metastases from 25 (24%) patients, 24 increased from G1 to G2, and 1 increased from G2 to G3; 68 (66%) patients had no change in grade (42 G1 and 26 G2), and 10 (10%) decreased from G2 to G1. No clinicopathologic factors were predictive of higher grade in metastases. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 55% for patients with stable grade versus 8% of patients with increased grade, while 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92 and 54%, respectively. The 5-year OS of patients who had stable grade with G1 and G2 primaries was 92 and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients had metastases with a different grade than their primary, and, when grade increased, both PFS and OS significantly decreased. Determining the grade in both the primary tumor and a metastasis is important for estimating prognosis and to help inform decisions regarding additional therapies.
BACKGROUND:Tumor grade is an important predictor of survival in gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), as determined by Ki-67 expression and mitotic rate. NETs generally grow indolently, but some cells may acquire traits facilitating metastasis. It is unclear how frequently metastases differ in grade from their primary tumors, and whether increasing grade in metastases affects prognosis. METHODS:Ki-67 immunohistochemistry was performed on resected GEPNET specimens and cases with results for both primary tumors and concurrent metastases were identified. Grade was determined using a modified World Health Organization classification (Ki-67: G1 = 0-2%; G2 > 2-20%; G3 > 20%). RESULTS:Ki-67 was performed on both the primary tumor and metastases in 103 patients. Tumor grade was higher in metastases from 25 (24%) patients, 24 increased from G1 to G2, and 1 increased from G2 to G3; 68 (66%) patients had no change in grade (42 G1 and 26 G2), and 10 (10%) decreased from G2 to G1. No clinicopathologic factors were predictive of higher grade in metastases. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 55% for patients with stable grade versus 8% of patients with increased grade, while 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92 and 54%, respectively. The 5-year OS of patients who had stable grade with G1 and G2 primaries was 92 and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients had metastases with a different grade than their primary, and, when grade increased, both PFS and OS significantly decreased. Determining the grade in both the primary tumor and a metastasis is important for estimating prognosis and to help inform decisions regarding additional therapies.
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anja Rinke; Hans-Helge Müller; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Klaus-Jochen Klose; Peter Barth; Matthias Wied; Christina Mayer; Behnaz Aminossadati; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Michael Bläker; Jan Harder; Christian Arnold; Thomas Gress; Rudolf Arnold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martyn E Caplin; Marianne Pavel; Jarosław B Ćwikła; Alexandria T Phan; Markus Raderer; Eva Sedláčková; Guillaume Cadiot; Edward M Wolin; Jaume Capdevila; Lucy Wall; Guido Rindi; Alison Langley; Séverine Martinez; Joëlle Blumberg; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Yao; Nicola Fazio; Simron Singh; Roberto Buzzoni; Carlo Carnaghi; Edward Wolin; Jiri Tomasek; Markus Raderer; Harald Lahner; Maurizio Voi; Lida Bubuteishvili Pacaud; Nicolas Rouyrre; Carolin Sachs; Juan W Valle; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Eric Van Cutsem; Margot Tesselaar; Yasuhiro Shimada; Do-Youn Oh; Jonathan Strosberg; Matthew H Kulke; Marianne E Pavel Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jessica E Maxwell; Scott K Sherman; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Andrew M Bellizzi; James R Howe Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Femke C R Staal; Else A Aalbersberg; Daphne van der Velden; Erica A Wilthagen; Margot E T Tesselaar; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Monique Maas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Aaron T Scott; Patrick J Breheny; Kendall J Keck; Andrew M Bellizzi; Joseph S Dillon; Thomas M O'Dorisio; James R Howe Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 3.982