Skip to main content

Gastrointestinal System, Pancreatobiliary Tract and Liver

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Well-Differentiated Malignancies

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Pathology ((CCPATH))

  • 821 Accesses

Abstract

Esophageal adenocarcinomas are believed to follow the intestinal metaplasia–dysplasia–carcinoma pathway. The metaplastic glandular epithelium is lined by a layer of periglandular myofibroblastic cells which regulate many aspects of the epithelial cells like in the intestine (refer to the intestine section for more detailed discussion) [4]. Due to the presence of the periglandular myofibroblastic sheath, benign intestinal epithelial proliferations have a characteristic serrated appearance. Except for the rare serrated adenocarcinomas in the colon which possess other easily discernible characteristic features, genuine serration is rarely seen in gastrointestinal epithelial malignancies. This important feature can be very useful in the diagnosis of well-differentiated carcinomas where invasion is insidious and desmoplasia is not evident.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zayour M, Lazova R. Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia: a review. Am J Dermatopathol. 2011;33(2):112–22. Quiz 123–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. El-Khoury J, Kibbi AG, Abbas O. Mucocutaneous pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia: a review. Am J Dermatopathol. 2012;34(2):165–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clickman JN, Odze RD. Chapter 20. Epithelilal neoplasms of the esophagus. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 535–62.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ochicha O, Pringle JH, Mohammed AZ. Immuno-histochemical study of epithelialmyofibrblast interaction in Barrett metaplasia. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2010;53(2):262–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Li A et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of pericryptal fibroblast sheath and proliferating epithelial cells in human colorectal adenomas and carcinomas with adenoma components. Pathol Int. 1999;49(5):426–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yao T, Tsuneyoshi M. Significance of pericryptal fibroblasts in colorectal epithelial tumors: a special reference to the histologic features and growth patterns. Hum Pathol. 1993;24(5):525–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Faragalla HF et al. Immunohistochemical staining for smoothelin in the duplicated versus the true muscularis mucosae of Barrett esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(1):55–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubio CA, Riddell R. Musculo-fibrous anomaly in Barrett’s mucosa with dysplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 1988;12(11):885–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis JT, Wang KK, Abraham SC. Muscularis mucosae duplication and the musculo-fibrous anomaly in endoscopic mucosal resections for Barrett esophagus: implications for staging of adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(4):566–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harada O et al. Esophageal gland duct adenoma: immunohistochemical comparison with the normal esophageal gland and ultrastractural analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):469–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown IS, Whiteman DC, Lauwers GY. Foveolar type dysplasia in Barrett esophagus. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(6):834–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mahajan D et al. Grading of gastric foveolar-type dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(1):1–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mutoh H et al. Pericryptal fibroblast sheath in intestinal metaplasia and gastric carcinoma. Gut. 2005;54(1):33–9.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tuner JR, Odze RD. Chapter 17. Polyps of the stomach. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 415–46.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kushima R et al. Gastric-type well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and pyloric gland adenoma of the stomach. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9(3):177–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yao T et al. Extremely well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach: clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(16):2510–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee WA. Gastric extremely well differentiated adenocarcinoma of gastric phenotype: as a gastric counterpart of adenoma malignum of the uterine cervix. World J Surg Oncol. 2005;3:28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yamamoto J et al. Extremely well differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach diagnosed preoperatively as esophageal achalasia: report of a case. Surg Today. 2005;35(6):488–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Singhi AD, Lazenby AJ, Montgomery EA. Gastric adenocarcinoma with chief cell differentiation: a proposal for reclassification as oxyntic gland polyp/adenoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(7):1030–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park do Y et al. Adenomatous and foveolar gastric dysplasia: distinct patterns of mucin expression and background intestinal metaplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(4):524–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lauwers GY, Riddell RH. Gastric epithelial dysplasia. Gut. 1999;45(5):784–90.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Odze RD et al. Gastritis cystica profunda versus invasive adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(2):316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen ZM et al. Pyloric gland adenoma: an entity distinct from gastric foveolar type adenoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(2):186–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Makinen MJ. Colorectal serrated adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2007;50(1):131–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Parfitt JR, Driman DK. Survivin and hedgehog protein expression in serrated colorectal polyps: an immunohistochemical study. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(5):710–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Horkko TT, Makinen MJ. Colorectal proliferation and apoptosis in serrated versus conventional adenoma-carcinoma pathway: growth, progression and survival. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2003;38(12):1241–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cunningham KS, Riddell RH. Serrated mucosal lesions of the colorectum. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2006;22(1):48–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Adegboyega PA et al. Immunohistochemical study of myofibroblasts in normal colonic mucosa, hyperplastic polyps, and adenomatous colorectal polyps. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126(7):829–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeung TM et al. Regulation of self-renewal and differentiation by the intestinal stem cell niche. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2011;68(15):2513–23.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Shaker A, Rubin DC. Intestinal stem cells and epithelial-mesenchymal interactions in the crypt and stem cell niche. Transl Res. 2010;156(3):180–7.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sappino AP et al. Colonic pericryptal fibroblasts. Differentiation pattern in embryogenesis and phenotypic modulation in epithelial proliferative lesions Virchows. Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1989;415(6):551–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaye GI, Lane N, Pascal RR. Colonic pericryptal fibroblast sheath: replication, migration, and cytodifferentiation of a mesenchymal cell system in adult tissue. II. Fine structural aspects of normal rabbit and human colon. Gastroenterology. 1968;54(5):852–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pai RK et al. Histologic and molecular analyses of colonic perineurial-like proliferations in serrated polyps: perineurial-like stromal proliferations are seen in sessile serrated adenomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(9):1373–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Adegboyega PA et al. Subepithelial myofibroblasts express cyclooxygenase-2 in colorectal tubular adenomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(17):5870–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Okayasu I et al. Mucosal remodeling in long-standing ulcerative colitis with colorectal neoplasia: significant alterations of NCAM + or alpha-SMA + subepithelial myofibroblasts and interstitial cells. Pathol Int. 2009;59(10):701–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Radovic S et al. Demonstration of perycriptal fibroblasts in inflammatory-regenerative and dysplastic epithelial lesions of the flat colonic mucosa. Adv Clin Path. 2001;5(4):139–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Higaki S et al. Immunohistological study to determine the presence of pericryptal myofibroblasts and basement membrane in colorectal epithelial tumors. J Gastroenterol. 1999;34(2):215–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fu X et al. Retained cell-cell adhesion in serrated neoplastic pathway as opposed to conventional colorectal adenomas. J Histochem Cytochem. 2010;59(2):158–66.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Noffsinger AE. Serrated polyps and colorectal cancer: new pathway to malignancy. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:343–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Okayasu I. Development of ulcerative colitis and its associated colorectal neoplasia as a model of the organ-specific chronic inflammation-carcinoma sequence. Pathol Int. 2012;62(6):368–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Redston M. Chapter 23. Epithelial neoplasms of the large intestine polyps. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 481–534.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kanel GC, Korula J. Atlas of liver pathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Burt AD, Portmann BC, Ferrell LD. MacSween’s pathology of the liver. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hong H, Patonay B, Finley J. Unusual reticulin staining pattern in well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma. Diagn Pathol. 2011;6:15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Ward SC, Waxman S. Fibrolamellar carcinoma: a review with focus on genetics and comparison to other malignant primary liver tumors. Semin Liver Dis. 2011;31(1):61–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Krings G et al. Immunohistochemical pitfalls and the importance of glypican 3 and arginase in the diagnosis of scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(6):782–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Okamura N et al. Cellular and stromal characteristics in the scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with hepatocellular carcinomas and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Pathol Int. 2005;55(11):724–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Seok JY et al. A fibrous stromal component in hepatocellular carcinoma reveals a cholangiocarcinoma-like gene expression trait and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Hepatology. 2012;55(6):1776–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ward SC et al. Fibrolamellar carcinoma of the liver exhibits immunohistochemical evidence of both hepatocyte and bile duct differentiation. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(9):1180–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Singhi AD et al. Reticulin loss in benign fatty liver: an important diagnostic pitfall when considering a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(5):710–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhu AX et al. HCC and angiogenesis: possible targets and future directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(5):292–301.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Matsumoto K et al. Liver organogenesis promoted by endothelial cells prior to vascular function. Science. 2001;294(5542):559–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Yang ZF, Poon RT. Vascular changes in hepatocellular carcinoma. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2008;291(6):721–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Goodman ZD, Terraciano L. In: Burt AD, Portmann BC, Ferrell LD, editors. MacSween’s pathology of the liver. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2007. p. 761–814. Chapter 15: Tumors and tumor-like lesions of the liver.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kanel GC, Korula J. Chapter 10. Neoplasms and related lesions. In: Atlas of liver pathology. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2010. p. 249–320.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jin SY, Choi IH. Early hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Hepatol. 2011;17(3):238–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Kondo F. Histological features of early hepatocellular carcinomas and their developmental process: for daily practical clinical application: hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2009;3(1):283–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Park YN. Update on precursor and early lesions of hepatocellular carcinomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(6):704–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ibukuro K. Vascular anatomy of the pancreas and clinical applications. Int J Gastrointest Cancer. 2001;30(1–2):87–104.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Okahara M et al. Arterial supply to the pancreas; variations and cross-sectional anatomy. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35(2):134–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hruban RH, Bishop PM, Klimstra DS. In: Silverberg SG, editor. Tumors of the pancreas, AFIP atlas of tumor pathology series 4. Washington, DC: ARP, AFIP; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hruban RH, Pitman MB, Klimstra DS. Chapter 1. The normal pancreas. In: Tumors of the pancreas. Washington, DC: ARP press; 2007. p. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Villasenor A, Cleaver O. Crosstalk between the developing pancreas and its blood vessels: an evolving dialog. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2012;23(6):685–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Magenheim J et al. Blood vessels restrain pancreas branching, differentiation and growth. Development. 2011;138(21):4743–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Cleaver O, Dor Y. Vascular instruction of pancreas development. Development. 2012;139(16):2833–43.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Pierreux CE et al. Epithelial: endothelial cross-talk regulates exocrine differentiation in developing pancreas. Dev Biol. 2010;347(1):216–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. O’Morchoe CC. Lymphatic system of the pancreas. Microsc Res Tech. 1997;37(5–6):456–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sah RP, Garg P, Saluja AK. Pathogenic mechanisms of acute pancreatitis. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28(5):507–15.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sah RP, Saluja A. Molecular mechanisms of pancreatic injury. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2011;27(5):444–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Chen JM, Ferec C. Genetics and pathogenesis of chronic pancreatitis: the 2012 update. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36(4):334–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Luo G et al. Stroma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an interaction loop. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1826(1):170–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Pandol S et al. Desmoplasia of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(11 Suppl):S44–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Omary MB et al. The pancreatic stellate cell: a star on the rise in pancreatic diseases. J Clin Invest. 2007;117(1):50–9.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Apte MV, Pirola RC, Wilson JS. Pancreatic stellate cells: a starring role in normal and diseased pancreas. Front Physiol. 2012;3:344.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Olive KP et al. Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling enhances delivery of chemotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Science. 2009;324(5933):1457–61.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Olson P et al. Imaging guided trials of the angiogenesis inhibitor sunitinib in mouse models predict efficacy in pancreatic neuroendocrine but not ductal carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(49):E1275–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Le A et al. Conceptual framework for cutting the pancreatic cancer fuel supply. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(16):4285–90.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kang R, Tang D. Autophagy in pancreatic cancer pathogenesis and treatment. Am J Cancer Res. 2012;2(4):383–96.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Feig C et al. The pancreas cancer microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(16):4266–76.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Hruban RH, Pitman MB, Klimstra DS. Chapter 7. Ductal adenocarcinoma. In: Tumors of the pancreas. Washington, DC: ARP press; 2007. p. 111–218.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wenig BM, Heffers CS. Chapter 34. Inflammtory, infectious and other non-neoplastic disorders of the pancreas. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lowery MA et al. Acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas: new genetic and treatment insights into a rare malignancy. Oncologist. 2011;16(12):1714–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Stelow EB et al. Pancreatic acinar cell carcinomas with prominent ductal differentiation: mixed acinar ductal carcinoma and mixed acinar endocrine ductal carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(4):510–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. El-Bahrawy MA et al. E-cadherin/catenin complex status in solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(1):1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Serra S, Chetty R. Revision 2: an immunohistochemical approach and evaluation of solid pseudopapillary tumour of the pancreas. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61(11):1153–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Kloppel G. Classification and pathology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011;18 Suppl 1:S1–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Asa SL. Pancreatic endocrine tumors. Mod Pathol. 2011;24 Suppl 2:S66–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Hruban RH, Pitman MB, Klimstra DS. Chapter 12. Endocrine neoplasms. In: Tumors of the pancreas. Washington, DC: ARP press; 2007. p. 251–304.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ando H. Embryology of the biliary tract. Dig Surg. 2010;27(2):87–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Strazzabosco M, Fabris L. Development of the bile ducts: essentials for the clinical hepatologist. J Hepatol. 2012;56(5):1159–70.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Dai J et al. Impact of bile acids on the growth of human cholangiocarcinoma via FXR. J Hematol Oncol. 2011;4:41.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Xia X et al. Bile acid interactions with cholangiocytes. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(22):3553–63.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Perez MJ, Briz O. Bile-acid-induced cell injury and protection. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(14):1677–89.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Bernstein H et al. Bile acids as endogenous etiologic agents in gastrointestinal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(27):3329–40.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Sirica AE, Campbell DJ, Dumur CI. Cancer-associated fibroblasts in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2011;27(3):276–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Leyva-Illades D et al. Cholangiocarcinoma pathogenesis: role of the tumor microenvironment. Transl Gastrointest Cancer. 2012;1(1):71–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Adsay VN, Klimstra DS. Benign and malignant tumors of the gallbladder and extrahepatic biliary tract. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 845–76.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nakanuma Y et al. Pathological spectrum of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma arising in non-biliary chronic advanced liver diseases. Pathol Int. 2011;61(5):298–305.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Nakanuma Y et al. Pathological classification of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on a new concept. World J Hepatol. 2010;2(12):419–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Sempoux C et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: new insights in pathology. Semin Liver Dis. 2011;31(1):49–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Nakanuma Y et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with predominant “ductal plate malformation” pattern: a new subtype. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(11):1629–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Yeh MM. Pathology of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(9):1485–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Panarelli NC, Yantiss RK. Mucinous neoplasms of the appendix and peritoneum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(10):1261–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Carr NJ, Emory TS, Sobin LH. Chaper 24. Epithelial neoplasm of the appendix. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 639–52.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Lisovsky M et al. Immunophenotypic characterization of anal gland carcinoma: loss of p63 and cytokeratin 5/6. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(8):1304–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Longacre TA, Kong CS, Welton ML. Diagnostic problems in anal pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15(5):263–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Shia J. An update on tumors of the anal canal. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;134(11):1601–11.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Tanaka E et al. Morphology of the epithelium of the lower rectum and the anal canal in the adult human. Med Mol Morphol. 2012;45(2):72–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Kondo R et al. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: an immunohistochemical study. J Gastroenterol. 2001;36(7):508–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Zhao X, Yue C. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;3(3):189–208.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Chapter 16. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. In: Edge SB, et al, editors. AJCC cancer staging handbook. 7th ed. Chicago: Springer; 2010. p. 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Abraham SC. Distinguishing gastrointestinal stromal tumors from their mimics: an update. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14(3):178–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Kirsch R, Gao ZH, Riddell R. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: diagnostic challenges and practical approach to differential diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14(4):261–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Swarts DR, Ramaekers FC, Speel EJ. Molecular and cellular biology of neuroendocrine lung tumors: evidence for separate biological entities. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1826(2):255–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Rekhtman N. Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(11):1628–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Graeme-Cook F. Chapter 25. Neuroendocrine tumors of the GI tract and appendix. In: Odze RD, Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas: an expert consult title. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. p. 653–93.

    Google Scholar 

  117. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Chapter 17. Neuroendocrine tumors. In: Edge SB, editor. AJCC cancer staging handbook. 7th ed. Chicago: Springer; 2010. p. 227–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendices

Appendix

Key Morphological Features of Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm (Well-Differentiated Appendiceal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma)

  • Circumferential mucosal replacement by mucin-containing cells

  • Undulating or flat growth with a broad pushing border (Fig. 7.24)

    Fig. 7.24
    figure 24

    Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Circumferential mucosal replacement by mucin-containing cells. Note undulating (a) and flat growth pattern (Surgical Pathology of the GI tract, Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, Elsevier/Saunders, 2009 with permission)

Discussion

Appendiceal adenocarcinomas are uncommon, and in most cases, they resemble their colonic counterparts in histopathological presentation. Here we discuss a unique entity: low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (well-differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma).

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms are characterized as a circumferential growth with an undulating or flat surface. The growth enlarges, deforms, or even destroys the appendix [103, 104]. The tumor cells are usually tall, thin with basal nuclei and thin mucin vacuoles. In general, they show a broad pushing border with no overt invasion of the mucosa. However, occasional diverticulum-like protrusions into the deep tissue are present. Denudation of the epithelium is also common. The appendiceal wall is usually fibrotic and lacks lymphoid tissue.

Differential Diagnosis

Simple Mucocele

Simple mucoceles are small cystic spaces lined by atrophic epithelium with associated inflammation. They lack the circumferential involvement pattern.

Adenoma with Mucocele

Adenomas with mucocele formation lack circumferential undulating or flattening of the luminal epithelium characteristic of low-grade appendiceal neoplasms. The cells have typical adenomatous features.

Anus

Key Morphological Features of Well-Differentiated Anal Gland Adenocarcinoma

  • Small glands infiltrating the wall

  • Lack of a myoepithelial cell layer (Fig. 7.25)

    Fig. 7.25
    figure 25

    Anal gland carcinoma. There is haphazard infiltration of the wall of the anorectal wall (a). Malignant glands lack a layer of myoepithelial cells (b) and are reactive with CK7 (c) (Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, American Society of Clinical Pathology, 2007 with permission)

Discussion

Most adenocarcinomas of the anal canal are secondary involvement by a primary rectal adenocarcinoma. Primary anal gland adenocarcinomas are characterized by small infiltrative glands without an intraluminal component and surface mucosal dysplasia [105–107]. Instead, the tumors are centered within the anorectal wall. The infiltrative pattern is not to be confused with normal distribution of anal glands in the internal and even external sphincter muscles [108]. In this aspect, immunostaining for p63 might be very useful in making the distinction since malignant glands lack a myoepithelial layer which is present around benign anal glands. Immunostainings for CK7 and CK20 are useful in differentiating them from rectal adenocarcinomas. Primary anal canal adenocarcinomas are positive for CK7 and negative for CK20 [105] (1).

Differential Diagnosis

Tailgut Cyst

Tailgut cysts are well circumscribed, multicystic with the cyst lining cells being mainly stratified squamous epithelium and occasional cuboidal or columnar cells. Disorganized smooth muscle fibers in the cyst wall can be seen.

Anal Duct or Gland Cyst

Anal duct or gland cysts can present in all three anatomical zones of the anus. Characteristically, they form intraepithelial microcysts and contain goblet cell metaplasia. The benign gland might penetrate the internal sphincter muscle or even the external sphincter muscle fibers. Presence of myoepithelial cells distinguishes them from anal gland adenocarcinomas.

Hidradenoma Papilliferum of the Perianal Skin

Hidradenomas papilliferum of the perianal skin is believed to derive from perianal sweat gland and contains well-circumscribed complex papillary structures composed of two layers of epithelial cells. The outer layer cells are myoepithelial in nature.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Prominent Mucinous Features (Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma)

Squamous cell carcinomas with prominent mucinous features contain a squamous cell component in addition to mucinous microcysts. It seems that the squamous component is biologically closer to adenocarcinoma than to anal squamous cell carcinomas [109].

Key Morphological Features of Well-Differentiated Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

  • Dyskeratotic squamous proliferation with infiltrative or pushing border

  • Or Complex papillary structure (Fig. 7.26)

    Fig. 7.26
    figure 26

    Well-differentiated anal squamous cell carcinoma (Surgical Pathology of the GI tract, Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, Elsevier/Saunders, 2009 with permission)

Discussion

Squamous cell carcinomas of the anus are etiologically similar to their cervical counterparts. The diagnostic criteria for esophagus apply to both of them (see esophagus section for more discussion). Two locally invasive variants are to be recognized. The giant condyloma acuminatum of Buschke–Lowenstein normally are large (>10 cm in diameter) complex papillary structures with focal invasion identified in only 50 % of reported case series. Verrucous carcinomas have characteristic pushing border front and crater-like keratinization.

Differential Diagnosis

Condyloma

Condylomas are usually less bulky and have shorter papillae and less epithelial atypia than giant condyloma acuminatum. They also lack locally destructive growth pattern of the latter.

Bowenoid Papulosis

Bowenoid papulosis occurs mainly in young adults and is characterized by its circumscription and low-grade epithelial atypia with surface maturation. It lacks complex structures and dermal involvement.

Bowenoid papulosis should not be confused with Bowen’s disease which is a variant of squamous cell carcinoma in situ in an older population. The latter shows greater cytological atypia with surface maturation disturbance and occasional involvement of adnexal structures.

Squamous Dysplasia Involving Anal Ducts

Squamous dysplasia involving anal ducts manifests a smooth rather than ragged contour. Comparison to adjacent uninvolved ductal structures helps with the appreciation of the smooth outlines of the involved. The nuclear features are the same as those of the dysplastic surface epithelium.

Gastrointestinal Tract Stroma

Key Morphological Features of High-Risk Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST)

  • Spindle and/or epithelial proliferation in the submucosa

  • Mitotic activity > 5/50HPF (Fig. 7.27)

    Fig. 7.27
    figure 27

    Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. The different histocytological presentations have no prognostic significance

Discussion

The older scheme for separating GISTs into benign and malignant categories has been replaced by a stratification system in which the risk of aggressive clinical behavior is predicted based on data from large-scale studies [110, 111]. In the stratification system, hemorrhage, necrosis, and nuclear pleomorphism, tumor size and even infiltrative growth pattern have been excluded. The 2010 AJCC classification uses mitotic rate as the only criterion in separating GISTs into low (grade 1) and high (grade 2) categories. In acknowledgment of the effect of anatomical location on tumor behavior, it recommends different staging criteria for gastric and small intestinal GISTS. The staging criteria for the former also apply to omental GISTs and those for the latter to esophageal, colorectal, mesenteric, and peritoneal GISTs.

Morphologically, most GISTS have a spindle cell pattern with epithelioid, mixed cell patterns accounting for the rest [112, 113]. Typically, the spindle cells are in short fascicles or whorls and contain eosinophilic fibrillary cytoplasm and indistinct cell borders. Epithelioid cells in GISTs are characterized by round cells with eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm arranged in nests or sheets. Cytological atypia is more frequently present than in spindle cells. Counterintuitively, scattered bizarre epithelioid cells are more commonly seen in low-grade gastric GISTs than in high-grade ones. As there are many other entities with spindle and epithelioid morphology in the gastrointestinal tract, the importance of microscopic examination of GISTs lies mainly in differentiating them from other spindle and epithelioid tumors and choosing appropriate fields for mitotic counting [112, 113].

As the database on GISTS expands, future studies might bring into the picture additional stratifying criteria, such as tumor rupture and status of surgical margins. Furthermore, high-grade small bowel GISTs are composed of long fascicles of spindles cells and contain less stromal skeinoid fibers than their benign counterparts. A tightly packed epithelioid appearance has been associated with an adverse clinical outcome in gastric GISTS. The current recommendation is that the presence of such morphological features should prompt at least a more meticulous evaluation of mitotic activity [110].

Differential Diagnosis

For Spindle Cell GISTs
Reactive Nodular Fibrous Pseudotumor and Pseudosarcomatous Proliferation

Reactive nodular fibrous pseudotumors occur mainly in the outer layer of the gut in patients with a previous history of abdominal surgery or trauma. Transmural extension, however, is possible. The hypocellular bland spindle and stellar cells are arranged haphazardly or in short fascicles.

Pseudosarcomatous proliferation contains granulation tissue with associated ulceration or polyps. The stromal cells, endothelial cells, and adjacent epithelial cells usually show marked cytological atypia. Overall low cellularity and a prominent inflammatory infiltrate are noticeable.

Leiomyoma

Leiomyomas have characteristic intersecting fascicles composed of cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, blunt end nuclei, and distinctive cell borders. Relative to GISTs, they have less cellularity. The tumor cells are diffusely negative for CD117 and CD34.

Schwannoma

Gastrointestinal schwannomas occur most frequently in the stomach, and they typically lack or contain inconspicuous trademark components of the tumor: Verocay bodies, nuclear palisading, xanthoma cell, and hyalinized vessels. Instead, they acquire an important feature: presence of a rim of lymphoid tissue with follicular center formation. The spindle cells have elongated, tapering, and often buckled nuclei and are arranged in trabeculae or even sheets. To further confound the matter, gastric and anorectal GISTs are commonly associated with fascicles of spindle cells with prominent nuclear palisading.

Thus accurate distinction between the two entities depends heavily on immunostainings. The tumor cells of the former stain are strongly positive for S100 (both nuclei and cytoplasm) and negative for CD117 and CD34.

Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors occur predominantly in the mesentery and omentum of children and young adults. The compact spindle cell variant resembles GISTs. However, the tumors contain a prominent component of inflammatory cells with significant numbers of plasma cells. Tumor cells are positive for ALK-1 and negative for CD117.

Inflammatory Fibroid Polyp

Inflammatory fibroid polyps contain loosely collagenous- or granulation-type stroma, with CD34 + fibroblasts distributed in a patternless pattern. Characteristic onion-skin cuffs of perivascular spindle cells and inflammatory infiltration (eosinophils as the prominent component) set them apart from GISTs. The tumor cells are positive for PDGFR and negative for CD117.

Desmoid Fibromatosis

Desmoid fibromatosis is a predominantly mesenteric tumor with possible infiltration of the gut wall. It is characterized by long sweeping fascicles of spindle cells and collagenous matrix (sometimes keloid-like collagen fibers). It lacks high cellularity, nuclear palisading, skeinoid fibers, and epithelioid cell components. Other characteristic features of the tumor include small muscular arteries and thin-walled and often ectatic veins with scant perivascular lymphocytes and scattered mast cells. The tumor cells commonly express beta-catenin and infrequently CD117.

Solitary Fibrous Tumor

Solitary fibrous tumors are located mainly in the peritoneum and retroperitoneum with possible serosal involvement. Characteristic features include a patternless pattern of the spindle cells, alternating hypercellularity and hypocellularity, ropy keloid collagen fibers, and hemangio-pericytoma-like vasculature. The tumor cells are CD34 positive and CD117 negative.

Spindle Tumors with Malignant Cytology

The differential diagnosis of spindle GISTs includes melanoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, clear cell sarcoma, and other rare entities. A detailed discussion of them is out of the scope of this book. Several excellent review papers are available for reference.

For Epithelioid GISTs
Neuroendocrine Tumor

Low-grade neuroendocrine tumors might exhibit both spindle and epithelioid cell patterns. Their characteristic chromatin and growth patterns usually point to the right diagnosis.

PEComa and Glomus Tumor

PEComas are characterized by a perivascular epithelioid cell proliferation which forms sheets or nests. Occasional CD117-positive cases have been reported. Therefore, in difficult cases myomelanocytic markers (HMB-45 or Melan A) should be included.

Glomus tumor cells have a uniform round shape distinctive cell borders and are closely associated with ectatic vessels. They are positive for SMA and negative for CD117.

Paraganglioma

Paragangliomas predominantly involve the duodenum and consist of three types of cells: spindle, epithelioid, and ganglion-like cells. The first two form the so-called Zellballen structure. Interestingly, the spindle cells are S100 positive and the ganglion-like cells stain for synaptophysin. All three of them are positive for NSE.

Epithelioid Tumors with Malignant Cytology

The differential diagnosis of epithelioid GISTs includes melanoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors, epithelioid leiomyosarcoma, and other rare entities. A detailed discussion of them is out of the scope of this book. Several excellent review papers are available for reference.

Caution: Variable expression of CD117 has been reported in melanoma, angiosarcomas, and PEComas.

The Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tissue

Key Features of Well-Differentiated Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (Net GII)

  • Ki67 index of 3 to 20 % or mitotic counter 2 to 20/10 HPF (Fig. 7.28)

    Fig. 7.28
    figure 28

    Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor. As for gastrointestinal stromal tumor, the different histological manifestations of the tumor carry no clinical significance. Mitotic index is the sole index in the grading (Surgical Pathology of the GI tract, Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, Elsevier/Saunders, 2009 with permission)

Discussion

The 2010 WHO classification replaces the term well-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma with neuroendocrine tumor grade 2 (NET GII) [86]. It uses mitotic count as the sole index in the three-tier tumor grading system for the gastrointestinal tract. This is in contrast to the four-tier system for the pulmonary system in which tumor grading is based on both mitotic count and necrosis. Importantly, cytological atypia is left out in both systems. Analogous to pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors, the gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors are a heterogeneous population of tumors which most likely can also be divided into two molecular and biological distinct categories with carcinoid (NET G1) and atypical carcinoid (NET G2) tumors manifesting similar genetic changes [114–116]. The two categories have remarkable differences in histopathologic and cytological features which allow their easy separation.

Information on tumor size, location, depth of tissue involvement, and even nodal metastasis has been incorporated into the staging scheme. In acknowledgement of their functional diversity and nonrandom distribution of the various cell types in the gastrointestinal system, a slightly different staging system has been adopted for the foregut, midgut, and hindgut, respectively [117].

Differential Diagnosis

Adenocarcinoma

NET G1 and G2 tumors have their characteristic trabecular, nest-like, or glandular patterns composed of bland-looking cells with uniform central nuclei with salt and pepper chromatin pattern. Therefore, a diagnosis is usually straightforward for typical cases.

Duodenal NET G1 and G2 tumors can have a prominent tumor acinar or glandular pattern with frequent intraluminal psammoma bodies [116]. Cursory low power examination can lead to an erroneous diagnosis of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma.

Appendiceal duodenal NET G1 and G2 tumors can show goblet cell and Paneth cell differentiation and focal glandular formation. The so-called tubular type simulates invasive adenocarcinoma even more in that it presents as teardrop-like tubules in a loosely fibrotic stroma [116]. The tumor cells are negative for chromogranin A (rectal neuroendocrine tumors are negative for chromogranin A).

Glomus Tumor

Glomus tumors are composed of uniform small round cells with lumpy chromatin pattern, and their close association with ectatic vessels is evident. The tumor cells are positive for SMA and negative for chromogranin and synaptophysin.

Lymphoma, Melanoma, and Poorly Differentiated Tumors

Lymphomas, melanomas, or poorly differentiated tumors can present in a nest pattern. However, attention to their cytological and other histological features avoids an erroneous diagnosis. In difficult cases, immunostainings are required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sun, X. (2015). Gastrointestinal System, Pancreatobiliary Tract and Liver. In: Well-Differentiated Malignancies. Current Clinical Pathology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1692-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1692-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1691-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1692-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics