Literature DB >> 9496831

Reproducibility of neuroendocrine lung tumor classification.

W D Travis1, A A Gal, T V Colby, D S Klimstra, R Falk, M N Koss.   

Abstract

For a tumor classification scheme to be useful, it must be reproducible and it must show clinical significance. Classification of neuroendocrine lung tumors is a difficult problem with little information about interobserver reproducibility. We sought to evaluate the classification of typical carcinoid (TC), atypical carcinoid (AC), large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), and small-cell carcinoma (SCC) tumors as proposed by W.D. Travis et al (Am J Surg Pathol 15:529, 1991). Forty neuroendocrine tumors were retrieved from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) files and independently evaluated by five lung pathologists and classified as TC, AC, LCNEC, or SCC (pure SCC, mixed small cell/large cell, and combined SCC). A single hematoxylin and eosin-stained slide from each case was reviewed. Each participant was provided a set of tables summarizing the criteria for separation of the four major categories. Agreement was regarded as unanimous if all five pathologists agreed, a majority if four agreed, and a consensus if three or more pathologists agreed. The kappa statistic was calculated to measure the degree of agreement between two observers. A consensus diagnosis was achieved in all 40 cases (100%), a majority agreement in 31 of 40 (78%), and unanimous agreement in 22 of 40 (55%) of cases. Unanimous agreement occurred in seven of SCC (70%), seven of TC (58%), four of AC (50%), and four of LCNEC (40%). A majority diagnosis was achieved in 11 of 12 (92%) of TC, 9 of 10 (90%) of SCC, 6 of 8 (75%) of AC, and 5 of 10 (50%) of LCNEC. Most of the kappa values were 0.70 or greater, falling into the substantial agreement category. The most common disagreements fell between LCNEC and SCC, followed by TC and AC, and AC and LCNEC. The highest reproducibility occurred for SCC and TC, with disagreement in 8% and 10% of the diagnoses, respectively. For TC, 10% of the diagnoses rendered were AC. For AC, 15% of the diagnoses were rendered as TC, with 2.5% called LCNEC and 2.5% called SCC. For LCNEC, 18% and 4% of the diagnoses were called SCC and AC, respectively. For SCC, 4% of the diagnoses were called AC and 4% were called LCNEC. Thus, using the classification scheme tested, a consensus diagnosis can be achieved for virtually all neuroendocrine lung tumors with substantial agreement between experienced lung pathologists. Classification of NE tumors is most reproducible for classification of TC and SCC but less reproducible for AC and LCNEC. These results indicate a need for more careful definition and application of criteria for TC versus AC and SCC versus LCNEC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9496831     DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(98)90047-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  33 in total

1.  Expression patterns of PAX5, c-Met, and paxillin in neuroendocrine tumors of the lung.

Authors:  Jie Song; Mei Li; Maria Tretiakova; Ravi Salgia; Philip T Cagle; Aliya N Husain
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 2.  Molecular strategies in the management of bronchopulmonary and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Authors:  Irvin M Modlin; Mark Kidd; Pier-Luigi Filosso; Matteo Roffinella; Anna Lewczuk; Jaroslaw Cwikla; Lisa Bodei; Agnieska Kolasinska-Cwikla; Kyung-Min Chung; Margot E Tesselaar; Ignat A Drozdov
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Next-Generation Sequencing of Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma Reveals Small Cell Carcinoma-like and Non-Small Cell Carcinoma-like Subsets.

Authors:  Natasha Rekhtman; Maria C Pietanza; Matthew D Hellmann; Jarushka Naidoo; Arshi Arora; Helen Won; Darragh F Halpenny; Hangjun Wang; Shaozhou K Tian; Anya M Litvak; Paul K Paik; Alexander E Drilon; Nicholas Socci; John T Poirier; Ronglai Shen; Michael F Berger; Andre L Moreira; William D Travis; Charles M Rudin; Marc Ladanyi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 4.  Unraveling tumor grading and genomic landscape in lung neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Giuseppe Pelosi; Mauro Papotti; Guido Rindi; Aldo Scarpa
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.943

Review 5.  Update on large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Authors:  Kenzo Hiroshima; Mari Mino-Kenudson
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2017-10

6.  Immunohistochemistry for assessment of pulmonary and pleural neoplasms: a review and update.

Authors:  Dongfeng Tan; Dani S Zander
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2008-01-01

7.  Classification of individual lung cancer cell lines based on DNA methylation markers: use of linear discriminant analysis and artificial neural networks.

Authors:  Alberto M Marchevsky; Jeffrey A Tsou; Ite A Laird-Offringa
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 8.  Typical and atypical carcinoid tumors of the lung are characterized by 11q deletions as detected by comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  A K Walch; H F Zitzelsberger; M M Aubele; A E Mattis; M Bauchinger; S Candidus; H W Präuer; M Werner; H Höfler
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.307

9.  CD117 immunoreactivity in high-grade neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: a comparative study of 39 large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas and 27 surgically resected small-cell carcinomas.

Authors:  Giuseppe Pelosi; Michele Masullo; Maria Elena Leon; Giulia Veronesi; Lorenzo Spaggiari; Felice Pasini; Angelica Sonzogni; Antonio Iannucci; Enrica Bresaola; Giuseppe Viale
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2004-09-16       Impact factor: 4.064

10.  Analysis of chromosome-11 aberrations in pulmonary and gastrointestinal carcinoids: an array comparative genomic hybridization-based study.

Authors:  Susanna Petzmann; Reinhard Ullmann; Iris Halbwedl; Helmut H Popper
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2004-07-03       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.