| Literature DB >> 33651160 |
K Dhanasekar1, V Visakan2, F Tahir3, S P Balasubramanian4,3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Composite phaeochromocytoma is a tumour containing a separate tumour of neuronal origin in addition to a chromaffin cell tumour. This study reports on two cases from a single centre's records and presents a systematic literature review of composite phaeochromocytomas.Entities:
Keywords: Adrenal; Composite tumours; Ganglioneuroblastoma; Ganglioneuroma; Incidentaloma; Neuroblastoma; Phaeochromocytoma; Schwannoma
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33651160 PMCID: PMC8933353 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02129-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg ISSN: 1435-2443 Impact factor: 2.895
Fig. 1Low power view (×4) showing pheochromocytoma (solid black arrow) and ganglioneuroma (solid white arrow) as part of the composite phaeochromocytoma. The inset shows chromogranin A staining at ×10 magnification
Fig. 2Low power view (×4) with background adrenal (solid black arrow) in the left upper part of the picture and composite pheochromocytoma on the right. The inset is a high-power view (×10) showing pheochromocytoma on the left (solid black arrow) and ganglioneuroma on the right (solid white arrow)
Fig. 3Low power view (4x) showing S100 staining highlighting the Schwann cells and the sustentacular cells of the composite pheochromocytoma (solid black arrows) but sparing the ganglion cells (solid white arrow) of the ganglioneuroma
Summary of two cases from host institution
| Case 1 | Case 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | Male |
| Age at presentation (years) | 69 | 75 |
| Composite tumour component | Ganglioneuroma | Ganglioneuroma |
| Underlying genetic syndrome | NF-1 | None |
| Presentation details | Haematuria | Incidental finding |
| Imaging modality | CT, MIBG | CT, FDG-PET |
| Primary management | Laparascopic adrenalectomy | Laparascopic adrenalectomy |
| Tumour diameter (cm) | 4.5 | 6 |
| Tumour laterality | Left | Left |
| Tumour PASS score | 5/20 | 4/20 |
| Outcome | Alive without disease | Alive without disease |
| Follow-up (months) | 19 | 25 |
Fig. 4Modified PRISMA flow diagram showing the process of inclusion and exclusion of articles included in this review
Summary of demographic, clinical presentation, histology and underlying genetic syndrome in patients with composite phaeochromocytoma
| Category ( | Classification | Number of patients |
|---|---|---|
| Gender ( | Male | 39 (42%) |
| Female | 51 (54%) | |
| Age ( | Median (range): 48 (4–86) | |
| Composite tumour component histology ( | Ganglioneuroma | 61 (65%) |
| Ganglioneuroblastoma | 15 (16%) | |
| Neuroblastoma | 10 (11%) | |
| Schwannoma | 1 (1%) | |
| Other* | 7 (7%) | |
| Underlying genetic syndrome ( | None | 68 (73%) |
| NF-1 | 18 (19%) | |
| MEN 2A | 4 (4%) | |
| von Hippel-Lindau syndrome | 2 (2%) | |
| WDHA syndrome2 | 2 (2%) | |
| Presentation details ( | Incidental finding | 35 (47%) |
| Abdominal pain/palpable mass | 24 (32%) | |
| Hypertension | 18 (24%) | |
| Headaches | 14 (19%) | |
| Weight loss | 14 (19%) | |
| Diarrhoea | 12 (16%) | |
| Palpitations and/or tachycardia | 10 (14%) | |
| Nausea and/or vomiting | 5 (7%) | |
| Sweating | 4 (5%) | |
| Anxiety | 3 (4%) | |
| Dysuria/haematuria | 3 (4%) | |
*Other includes: “neuroendocrine carcinoma” (n=1), “ganglion cells in clusters” (n=1), “malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour” (MPNST—n=3), “MPNST sustentaculoma” (n=1), “MPNST-rhabdomyosarcoma—Triton tumour” (n=1)
Fig. 5Pie chart showing patients with composite phaeochromocytoma in the review stratified by underlying genetic syndrome
Fig. 6Pie chart showing patients with composite phaeochromocytoma included in the review, stratified by composite tumour components
Imaging modalities used, primary management and clinical outcomes of patients with composite phaeochromocytoma
| Category ( | Classification | Number of patients | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging modality ( | CT | 45 (78%)—solitary modality in 24 (42%) | |
| MRI | 15 (26%) | ||
| MIBG | 21 (37%)—with CT in 11 (19%), with MRI in 5 (9%) | ||
| Ultrasound | 4 (7%) | ||
| Primary management ( | Adrenalectomy | 66 (90) | |
| None—autopsy after death | 6 (8%) | ||
| Radiotherapy | 1 (1%) | ||
| Chemotherapy (for neuroblastoma metastases) + adrenalectomy | 1 (1%) | ||
| Tumour diameter ( | Median (range): 4.98cm (1.5–26) | ||
| Tumour laterality ( | Left ( | Laparoscopic | 4 (7%) |
| Unspecified | 19 (32%) | ||
| Right ( | Laparoscopic | 5 (8%) | |
| Unspecified | 28 (48%) | ||
| Bilateral ( | Laparoscopic | 3 (5%) | |
| Unspecified | 8 (14%) | ||
| Outcomes ( | Alive without disease | 55 (79%) | |
| Alive with metastases | 1 (1%) | ||
| Death from composite tumour | 10 (14%) | ||
| Death from other disease* | 4 (6%) | ||
| Follow up time ( | Median (range): 18 months (2 weeks–14 years) | ||
| Time between primary management and death ( | Median (range): 8 months (3–168 months) | ||
*Other causes of death include colorectal cancer (n=1), non-small cell lung cancer (n=1), bladder cancer (n=1) and myocardial infarction (n=2)
JBI critical appraisal of case reports
| JBI Question No. | Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Were the patients’ demographic characteristics clearly described? | 61/62 (98%)* |
| 2. Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | 53/61 (85%) |
| 3. Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? | 55/61 (91%) |
| 4. Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? | 47/61 (77%) |
| 5. Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | 52/59 (88%) |
| 6. Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? | 50/58 (86%) |
| 7. Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | 27/30 (90%) |
| 8. Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | 58/62 (94%) |
E.g. of the 62 studies for which question 1 was applicable, 61 studies satisfied the question (98%)