BACKGROUND: Well-differentiated (WD) and poorly differentiated (PD) pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are biologically distinct entities with different therapies and prognoses. WD neoplasms with elevated proliferation (Ki-67 > 20%) have been shown to have an overlapping histology with PD neuroendocrine carcinomas. This study compared expert cytomorphologic assessments of differentiation in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: Fine-needle aspiration specimens from pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (grade 2 [G2] and grade 3 [G3] according to the 2017 World Health Organization classification; n = 72) were diagnosed independently by 3 cytopathologists as WD or PD (poorly differentiated large cell type [PD-L] or poorly differentiated small cell type [PD-S]) purely on the basis of cytomorphology. Their diagnoses were compared with a final classification supported by immunohistochemistry (retinoblastoma (RB), death domain- associated protein (DAXX), and α thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome X-linked (ATRX) protein expression), targeted mutation analysis (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets), prior history of G1/G2 histology, and consensus. RESULTS: The rate of agreement on differentiation was 38% (15 WD cases and 12 PD cases) for the 70 cases included (55 WD cases [n = 19 G2, n = 31 G3, and n = 5 could not be graded] and 15 PD cases [n = 6 PD-S, n = 6 PD-L, and n = 3 PD, not otherwise specified). Two cases could not be classified by the employed methods. PD carcinomas had a higher rate of agreement (10 of 15 [67%]) than WD neoplasms (15 of 55 [27%]). Round nuclei and plasmacytoid cells were associated with agreement for WD cases, whereas apoptosis and angulated nuclei were associated with disagreement. Necrosis was associated with agreement for PD cases. CONCLUSIONS: A purely morphologic approach to the distinction between G2 and G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms based on cytology can be challenging, with disagreement found among experienced cytopathologists. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126:44-53.
BACKGROUND: Well-differentiated (WD) and poorly differentiated (PD) pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are biologically distinct entities with different therapies and prognoses. WD neoplasms with elevated proliferation (Ki-67 > 20%) have been shown to have an overlapping histology with PD neuroendocrine carcinomas. This study compared expert cytomorphologic assessments of differentiation in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: Fine-needle aspiration specimens from pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (grade 2 [G2] and grade 3 [G3] according to the 2017 World Health Organization classification; n = 72) were diagnosed independently by 3 cytopathologists as WD or PD (poorly differentiated large cell type [PD-L] or poorly differentiated small cell type [PD-S]) purely on the basis of cytomorphology. Their diagnoses were compared with a final classification supported by immunohistochemistry (retinoblastoma (RB), death domain- associated protein (DAXX), and α thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome X-linked (ATRX) protein expression), targeted mutation analysis (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets), prior history of G1/G2 histology, and consensus. RESULTS: The rate of agreement on differentiation was 38% (15 WD cases and 12 PD cases) for the 70 cases included (55 WD cases [n = 19 G2, n = 31 G3, and n = 5 could not be graded] and 15 PD cases [n = 6 PD-S, n = 6 PD-L, and n = 3 PD, not otherwise specified). Two cases could not be classified by the employed methods. PD carcinomas had a higher rate of agreement (10 of 15 [67%]) than WD neoplasms (15 of 55 [27%]). Round nuclei and plasmacytoid cells were associated with agreement for WD cases, whereas apoptosis and angulated nuclei were associated with disagreement. Necrosis was associated with agreement for PD cases. CONCLUSIONS: A purely morphologic approach to the distinction between G2 and G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms based on cytology can be challenging, with disagreement found among experienced cytopathologists. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126:44-53.
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
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
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
Authors: Olca Basturk; Laura Tang; Ralph H Hruban; Volkan Adsay; Zhaohai Yang; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Efsevia Vakiani; Stefano La Rosa; Kee-Taek Jang; Wendy L Frankel; Xiuli Liu; Lizhi Zhang; Thomas J Giordano; Andrew M Bellizzi; Jey-Hsin Chen; Chanjuan Shi; Peter Allen; Diane L Reidy; Christopher L Wolfgang; Burcu Saka; Neda Rezaee; Vikram Deshpande; David S Klimstra Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Carlie S Sigel; Huimin Guo; Keith M Sigel; Ming Zhang; Natasha Rekhtman; Oscar Lin; David S Klimstra; Achim A Jungbluth; Laura K Tang Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Donavan T Cheng; Talia N Mitchell; Ahmet Zehir; Ronak H Shah; Ryma Benayed; Aijazuddin Syed; Raghu Chandramohan; Zhen Yu Liu; Helen H Won; Sasinya N Scott; A Rose Brannon; Catherine O'Reilly; Justyna Sadowska; Jacklyn Casanova; Angela Yannes; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Jinjuan Yao; Wei Song; Dara S Ross; Alifya Oultache; Snjezana Dogan; Laetitia Borsu; Meera Hameed; Khedoudja Nafa; Maria E Arcila; Marc Ladanyi; Michael F Berger Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Nitya Raj; Emily Valentino; Marinela Capanu; Laura H Tang; Olca Basturk; Brian R Untch; Peter J Allen; David S Klimstra; Diane Reidy-Lagunes Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Carlie S Sigel; Vitor Werneck Krauss Silva; Michelle D Reid; David Chhieng; Olca Basturk; Keith M Sigel; Tanisha D Daniel; David S Klimstra; Laura H Tang Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 5.284