Nikolaos A Trikalinos1, Deyali Chatterjee2, Jane Lee2, Jingxia Liu3, Greg Williams3, William Hawkins3, Chet Hammill3. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA. ntrikalinos@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate grading of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is crucial for proper assessment of prognosis. Estimation of the proliferative indices, if not performed properly, is largely erroneous due to significant intratumoral heterogeneity. We sought to establish the degree of error in the grading of a cohort of curatively resected pancreatic NENs (PanNENs) and the theoretical impact of that in a larger cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) patients. METHODS: A retrospective query of an institutional surgical database was performed from 2000 to 2018 to identify optimally resected PanNENs, which were reviewed by two gastrointestinal pathologists and regraded according to the WHO 2017 classification. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for original and new grading systems, respectively and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of the interested variables, including new grading systems. RESULTS: A total of 176 cases were identified. After regrading, 17/64 (26.6%) G1 neoplasms were classified as G2 and 12/95 (12.6%) G2 neoplasms were classified as G1, while 1/11 (9.1%) G3 neoplasms were classified as G2. Our expert gastrointestinal pathologists agreed on 97% of reclassified cases by blind review. Application of the G1/G2 misclassification errors on various groups, including PanNENs, in a SEER database of 1385 patients rendered the reported survival differences nonsignificant (1000 repetitions; p = 0.063, 95% confidence interval 0.056-0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Mischaracterization of grade is common in optimally resected PanNENs but is eliminated with proper training and adherence to guidelines. The discrepancy rates can cast doubt on the generally accepted survival differences between G1 and G2 patients, as surmised by large database analyses.
BACKGROUND: Accurate grading of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is crucial for proper assessment of prognosis. Estimation of the proliferative indices, if not performed properly, is largely erroneous due to significant intratumoral heterogeneity. We sought to establish the degree of error in the grading of a cohort of curatively resected pancreatic NENs (PanNENs) and the theoretical impact of that in a larger cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) patients. METHODS: A retrospective query of an institutional surgical database was performed from 2000 to 2018 to identify optimally resected PanNENs, which were reviewed by two gastrointestinal pathologists and regraded according to the WHO 2017 classification. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for original and new grading systems, respectively and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of the interested variables, including new grading systems. RESULTS: A total of 176 cases were identified. After regrading, 17/64 (26.6%) G1 neoplasms were classified as G2 and 12/95 (12.6%) G2 neoplasms were classified as G1, while 1/11 (9.1%) G3 neoplasms were classified as G2. Our expert gastrointestinal pathologists agreed on 97% of reclassified cases by blind review. Application of the G1/G2 misclassification errors on various groups, including PanNENs, in a SEER database of 1385 patients rendered the reported survival differences nonsignificant (1000 repetitions; p = 0.063, 95% confidence interval 0.056-0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Mischaracterization of grade is common in optimally resected PanNENs but is eliminated with proper training and adherence to guidelines. The discrepancy rates can cast doubt on the generally accepted survival differences between G1 and G2 patients, as surmised by large database analyses.
Authors: Anne-Vibeke Laenkholm; Dorthe Grabau; Maj-Lis Møller Talman; Eva Balslev; Anne Marie Bak Jylling; Tomasz Piotr Tabor; Morten Johansen; Anja Brügmann; Giedrius Lelkaitis; Tina Di Caterino; Henrik Mygind; Thomas Poulsen; Henrik Mertz; Gorm Søndergaard; Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Katiuscha Merath; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Alexandra G Lopez-Aguiar; George Poultsides; Eleftherios Makris; Flavio Rocha; Zaheer Kanji; Sharon Weber; Alexander Fisher; Ryan Fields; Bradley A Krasnick; Kamran Idrees; Paula M Smith; Cliff Cho; Megan Beems; Carl R Schmidt; Mary Dillhoff; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Barbara Nuñez-Valdovinos; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Paula Jimenez-Fonseca; Jaume Capdevila; Ángel Castaño-Pascual; Marta Benavent; Jose Javier Pi Barrio; Alex Teule; Vicente Alonso; Ana Custodio; Monica Marazuela; Ángel Segura; Adolfo Beguiristain; Marta Llanos; Maria Purificacion Martinez Del Prado; Jose Angel Diaz-Perez; Daniel Castellano; Isabel Sevilla; Carlos Lopez; Teresa Alonso; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-01-12
Authors: Manisha H Shah; Whitney S Goldner; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Emily Bergsland; Jordan D Berlin; Daniel Halperin; Jennifer Chan; Matthew H Kulke; Al B Benson; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jennifer Eads; Paul F Engstrom; Paul Fanta; Thomas Giordano; Jin He; Martin J Heslin; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Fouad Kandeel; Sajid A Khan; Wajih Zaheer Kidwai; Pamela L Kunz; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Christopher Lieu; Venu G Pillarisetty; Leonard Saltz; Julie Ann Sosa; Jonathan R Strosberg; Craig A Sussman; Nikolaos A Trikalinos; Nataliya A Uboha; Jonathan Whisenant; Terence Wong; James C Yao; Jennifer L Burns; Ndiya Ogba; Griselda Zuccarino-Catania Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Arvind Dasari; Chan Shen; Daniel Halperin; Bo Zhao; Shouhao Zhou; Ying Xu; Tina Shih; James C Yao Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ah-Young Kwon; Ha Young Park; Jiyeon Hyeon; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Jeong Eon Lee; Jong-Han Yu; Se Kyung Lee; Soo Youn Cho; Eun Yoon Cho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dordi Lea; Einar G Gudlaugsson; Ivar Skaland; Melinda Lillesand; Kjetil Søreide; Jon A Søreide Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2021-08-01