Skip to main content
Log in

Grading der Tumoren des hepatobiliären Systems

Tumor grading of the hepatobiliary system

  • Schwerpunkt: Grading-Systeme
  • Published:
Der Pathologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Tumoren von Leber, intra- und extrahepatischen Gallengängen und der Gallenblase sind sehr heterogen und verhalten sich biologisch unterschiedlich. Das von der WHO vorgeschlagene vierstufige (gut, mäßig, schlecht und undifferenziert) Gradingsystem für hepatozelluläre Karzinome berücksichtigt die Tumorgröße, die Architektur sowie das Ausmaß von Zell- und Kernpolymorphien. Darüber hinaus definiert die WHO einige Sonderformen des hepatozellulären Karzinoms.

Für die Karzinome der intrahepatischen Gallengänge sieht die WHO ein dreistufiges (gut, mäßig und schlecht differenziert) Gradingsystem vor, das sich auf architektonische und zytologische Veränderungen stützt. Auch an dieser Lokalisation gibt es histologische Sonderformen, die außerhalb des beschriebenen Gradingsystems behandelt werden müssen.

Das ebenfalls dreistufige (gut-, mäßig- und schlecht differenziert) von der WHO vorgeschlagene Grading der Karzinome der extrahepatischen Gallengänge und der Gallenblase richtet sich nach dem Anteil der enthaltenen Drüsen innerhalb des Adenokarzinoms. Ähnlich wie bei den Karzinomen der Leber und der intrahepatischen Gallengänge gibt es auch hier zahlreiche histologische Sonderformen, die im vorliegenden Artikel weiter erläutert werden.

Abstract

Tumors of the liver, intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts as well as the gallbladder are very heterogeneous and show different biological behavior. The 4‑stage (i.e. well, moderately, poorly and undifferentiated) grading system for hepatocellular carcinoma proposed by the WHO takes tumor size and architecture as well as the extent of cell and nuclear pleomorphism into account. In addition, the WHO defines some special forms of hepatocellular carcinoma. For carcinomas of intrahepatic bile ducts the WHO provides a 3‑stage (well, moderately and poorly differentiated) grading system, which is based on architectural and cytological changes. At this localization there are also additional special histological forms that have to be dealt with outside the grading system described. The WHO proposes a 3‑stage (well, moderately and poorly differentiated) grading system for carcinomas of the extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, which considers the proportion of glands contained within the adenocarcinoma. Similar to cancers of the liver and intrahepatic bile ducts there are also numerous special histological forms, which are explained in this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Aaltonen LA, Hamilton SR (2000) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system. Surg Oncol 9(3):144–145

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (2001) Tumors of the gallbladder, extrahepatic bile ducts and ampulla of vater. J Clin Pathol 54:816

    Google Scholar 

  3. Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Moran-Portela D, Lino-Silva S (2008) Cribriform carcinoma of the gallbladder: a clinicopathologic study of 7 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 32:1694–1698. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181706237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Albores-Saavedra J, Molberg K, Henson DE (1996) Unusual malignant epithelial tumors of the gallbladder. Semin Diagn Pathol 13:326–338

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. WHO

  6. Cross S (2001) Tumors of the gallbladder, extrahepatic biliary ducts, and ampulla of vater. Histopathology 39:432 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2559.2001.01244.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Edmondson MD, Steiner PE (1954) Primary carcinoma of the liver: a study of 100 cases among 48,900 necropsies. Cancer 7:462–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kojiro M, Sugihara S, Kakizoe S et al (1989) Hepatocellular carcinoma with sarcomatous change: a special reference to the relationship with anticancer therapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 23:4–8. doi:10.1007/BF00647229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurogi M, Nakashima O, Miyaaki H et al (2006) Clinicopathological study of scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:1470–1477. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04372.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee JH, Lee KG, Paik SS et al (2011) Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder with production of alpha-fetoprotein. J Korean Surg Soc 80:440–444. doi:10.4174/jkss.2011.80.6.440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nemolato S, Fanni D, Naccarato AG et al (2008) Lymphoepitelioma-like hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report and a review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol 14:4694–4696

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Nzeako UC, Goodman ZD, Ishak KG (1996) Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic livers. a clinico-histopathologic study of 804 north american patients. Am J Clin Pathol 105:65–75. doi:10.1093/ajcp/105.1.65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Anders RA et al (2007) Preoperative assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma tumor grade using needle biopsy: implications for transplant eligibility. Ann Surg 245:435–442. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000250420.73854.ad

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pirisi M, Leutner M, Pinato DJ et al (2010) Reliability and reproducibility of the edmondson grading of hepatocellular carcinoma using paired core biopsy and surgical resection specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134:1818–1822. doi:10.1043/2009-0551-OAR1.1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakamoto K, Monobe Y, Kouno M et al (2004) Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder: case report and review of the literature. Pathol Int 54:52–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Torbenson M (2007) Review of the clinicopathologic features of fibrolamellar carcinoma. Adv Anat Pathol 14:217–223. doi:10.1097/PAP.0b013e3180504913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vale P (2013) Histopathology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res 190:21–33. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16037-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wittekind C, Oberschmid B (2010) TNM-Klassifikation maligner Tumoren 2010. Pathologe 31:333–338. doi:10.1007/s00292-010-1301-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V. (2013) S3 Leitlinie – Diagnostik und Therapie des hepatozellulären Karzinoms

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to H. Jütte or A. Tannapfel.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

H. Jütte und A. Tannapfel geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Schwerpunktherausgeber

C. Wittekind, Leipzig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jütte, H., Tannapfel, A. Grading der Tumoren des hepatobiliären Systems. Pathologe 37, 299–303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-016-0176-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-016-0176-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation