Abstract
Background
The prognosis and management of neuroendocrine carcinoma are largely driven by histologic grade as assessed by mitotic activity. The authors reviewed their institutional experience to determine whether the histologic grade of neuroendocrine carcinoma can differ between primary and metastatic tumors.
Methods
This study examined patients who underwent operative resection of both primary and metastatic foci of neuroendocrine carcinoma. Resected tumors were independently reviewed and categorized as low, intermediate, or high grade as determined by mitotic count.
Results
The authors identified 20 patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma treated at their institution between 1997 and 2013 for whom complete pathologic review of primary and metastatic tumors was possible. Primary lesions were found in the small intestine (n = 12), pancreas (n = 7), ampulla (n = 1), stomach (n = 1), and rectum (n = 1). The timing of hepatic metastasis was synchronous in 15 cases and metachronous in 5 cases. The histologic grade was concordant between primary and metastatic tumors in 9 cases and discordant in 11 cases. Among the discordant cases, 7 had a higher metastatic grade than primary grade, and 4 had a lower metastatic grade than primary grade. Metachronous presentation was associated with a higher likelihood of grade discordance (p = 0.03). The histologic grade of all metachronous metastases differed from that of the primary tumors.
Conclusion
There is a high prevalence of histologic grade discordance between primary and metastatic foci of neuroendocrine carcinoma, particularly among patients with a metachronous metastatic presentation. Given the importance of histologic grade in disease prognostication and treatment planning, this finding may be informative for the management of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Busch RA, Cho CS. Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. In: Zyromski NJ (ed) Handbook of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, 2015, pp 62–75.
Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3063–72.
Landry CS, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM, Martin RC II. Management of hepatic metastasis of gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:253–8.
Ramage JK, Ahmed A, Ardill J, et al. Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumors. Gut. 2012;561:6–32.
Hochwald SN, Zee S, Conlon KC, Colleoni R, Louie O, Brennan MF, Klimstra DS. Prognostic factors in pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: an analysis of 136 cases with a proposal for low-grade and intermediate-grade groups. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2633–42.
Cho CS, Labow DM, Tang L, et al. Histologic grade is correlated with outcome after resection of hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Cancer. 2008;113:126–34.
Ballian N, Loeffler AG, Rajamanickam V, Norstedt PA, Weber SM, Cho CS. A simplified prognostic system for resected pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. HPB. 2009;11:422–8.
Rindi G, D’Adda T, Froio E, Fellagra G, Bordi C. Prognostic factors in gastrointestinal endocrine tumors. Endocr Pathol. 2007;18:145–9.
Ferrone CR, Tang LH, Tomlinson J, et al. Determining prognosis in patients with pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: can the WHO classification system be simplified? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5609–15.
Pape UF, Jann H, Muller-Nordhorn J, et al. Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer. 2008;113:256–65.
Strosberg J, Nasir A, Coppola D, Wick M, Kvols L. Correlation between grade and prognosis in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:1262–8.
Bosman F, Carneiro F, Hruban R, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010.
Martin RC, Kooby DA, Weber SM, et al. Analysis of 6747 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors for a proposed staging system. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:175–83.
American Joint Committee on Cancer. Neuroendocrine tumors. In: Edge SB (ed) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 2010, pp 181–90.
Zen Y, Heaton N. Elevated Ki-67 labeling index in “synchronous liver metastases” of well-differentiated enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Pathol Int. 2013;63:532–8.
Singh S, Hallet J, Rowsell C, Law CHL. Variability of Ki67 labeling index in multiple neuroendocrine tumors specimens over the course of the disease. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1517–22.
Miller HC, Drymousis P, Flora R, Goldin R, Spalding D, Frilling A. Role of Ki-67 proliferation index in the assessment of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasias regarding the stage of disease. World J Surg. 2014;38:1353–61.
Yang Z, Tang LH, Klimstra DS. Effect of tumor heterogeneity on the assessment of Ki67 labeling index in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver: implications for prognostic stratification. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:853–60.
Disclosure
There are no conflicts of interest. The contents of this report do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adesoye, T., Daleo, M.A., Loeffler, A.G. et al. Discordance of Histologic Grade Between Primary and Metastatic Neuroendocrine Carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol 22 (Suppl 3), 817–821 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4733-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4733-7