Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 462, Issue 5, pp 501–505 | Cite as

Ki-67 is a reliable pathological grading marker for neuroendocrine tumors

  • Ashlie Nadler
  • Moises Cukier
  • Corwyn Rowsell
  • Sepideh Kamali
  • Yael Feinberg
  • Simron Singh
  • Calvin H. L. Law
Original Article

Abstract

In neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), proliferation markers, especially Ki-67, have become increasingly important. This study was designed to examine the reproducibility of Ki-67 for use in the current classification of NETs. A retrospectively assembled integrated database with prospectively collected data of patients undergoing multidisciplinary management for NETs from 2000 to 2009 was analyzed. Original pathology was reviewed to reassess Ki-67 values. Ki-67 was then categorized to grades G1 (≤2 %), G2 (3–20 %), or G3 (>20 %) according to the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines and the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Original Ki-67 values were compared to reviewed values. All statistical analyses were carried out using SAS 9.1.3. A total of 184 patients were included of which 48 % were male. The most common primary NET site was the small bowel, in 27 %. On pathology review, there was 94 % agreement for G1, with 4 % of cases upgraded at review to G2 and 2 % of cases upgraded to G3. For G2, there was 94 % agreement, with 6 % of cases downgraded to G1 and 0 % upgraded. For G3, there was 90 % agreement, with 10 % of cases downgraded to G2 and none to G1 (kappa = 0.89). Ki-67 is a proliferative marker for NETs that is highly reproducible when used to grade tumors according to ENETS and WHO categories. The high inter-institutional reliability in the determination of tumor grade as assessed by Ki-67 makes it a reliable tool in the assessment of patients with NETs.

Keywords

Neuroendocrine tumor Carcinoid Ki-67 Reliability 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, Dagohoy C, Leary C, Mares JE, Abdalla EK, Fleming JB, Vauthey JN, Rashid A, Evans DB (2008) One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol 26:3063–3072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hauso O, Gustafsson BI, Kidd M, Waldum HL, Drozdov I, Chan AK, Modlin IM (2008) Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology: contrasting Norway and North America. Cancer 113:2655–2664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hemminki K, Li X (2001) Incidence trends and risk factors of carcinoid tumors: a nationwide epidemiologic study from Sweden. Cancer 92:2204–2210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellis L, Shale MJ, Coleman MP (2010) Carcinoid tumors of the gastrointestinal tract: trends in incidence in England since 1971. Am J Gastroenterol 105:2563–2569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Modlin IM, Moss SF, Chung DC, Jensen RT, Snyderwine E (2008) Priorities for improving the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(18):1282–1289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerdes J, Lemke H, Baisch H, Wacker H-H, Schwab U, Stein H (1984) Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation-associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. J Immunol 133(4):1710–1715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholzen T, Gerdes J (2000) The Ki-67 Protein: from the known and the unknown. J Cell Physiol 182:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jamali M, Runjan C (2008) Predicting prognosis in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an overview and the value of Ki-67 immunostaining. Endocr Pathol 19:282–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vilar E, Salazar R, Pérez-García J, Cortes J, Öberg K, Tabernero J (2007) Chemotherapy and role of the proliferation marker Ki-67 in digestive neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Relat Cancer 14:221–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    La Rosa S, Sessa F, Capella C, Riva C, Leone BE, Klersy C, Rindi G, Solcia E (1996) Prognostic criteria in nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine tumours. Virchows Arch 429(6):323–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pape U-F, Berndt U, Müller-Nordhorn J, Böhmig M, Roll S, Koch M, Willich SN, Wiedenmann B (2008) Prognostic factors of long-term outcome in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer 15:1083–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelosi G, Bresaola E, Bogina G, Pasini F, Rodella S, Castelli P, Lacono C, Serio G, Zamboni G (1996) Endocrine tumors of the pancreas: Ki-67 immunoreactivity on paraffin sections is an independent predictor for malignancy: a comparative study with proliferating-cell nuclear antigen and progesterone receptor protein immunostaining, mitotic index, and other clinicopathologic variables. Hum Pathol 27(11):1124–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arnold R, Rinke A, Klose K-J, Müller H-H, Wied M, Zamzow K, Schmidt C, Schade-Brittinger C, Barth P, Moll R, Koller M, Unterhalt M, Hiddemann W, Schmidt-Lauber M, Pavel M, Arnold CN (2005) Octreotide versus octreotide plus interferon-alpha in endocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors: a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:761–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Adsay NV, Chetty R, Desphande V, Gönen M, Jensen RT, Kidd M, Kulke MH, Lloyd RV, Moran C, Moss SF, Oberg K, O’Toole D, Rindi G, Robert ME, Suster S, Tang LH, Tzen C-Y, Washington MK, Wiedenmann B, Yao J (2010) Pathology reporting of neuroendocrine tumors: application of the delphic consensus process to the development of a minimum pathology data set. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3):300–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rindi G, Klöppel G, Ahlmann H, Caplin M, Couvelard A, de Herder WW, Erikssson B, Falchetti A, Falconi M, Komminoth P, Körner M, Lopes JM, McNicol A-M, Nilsson O, Perren A, Scarpa A, Scoazec J-Y, Wiedenmann B et al (2006) TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 449:395–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rindi G, Klöppel G, Couvelard A, Komminoth P, Körner M, Lopes JM, McNicol A-M, Nilsson O, Perren A, Scarpa A, Scoaze J-Y, Wiedenmann B (2007) TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 451:757–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plöckinger U, Rindi G, Arnold R, Eriksson B, Krenning EP, de Herder WW, Goede A, Caplin M, Öberg K, Reubi JC, Nilsson O, Delle Fave G, Ruszniewski P, Ahlman H, Wiedenmann B (2004) Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine gastrointestinal tumour: a consensus statement on behalf of the European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS). Neuroendocrinology 80:394–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boudreaux JP, Klimstra DS, Hassan MM, Woltering EA, Jensen RT, Goldsmith SJ, Nutting C, Bushnell DL, Caplin ME, Yao JC (2010) The NANETS consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumors: well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the jejunum, ileum, appendix, and cecum. Pancreas 39(6):753–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lawrence B, Kidd M, Svedja B, Modlin I (2011) A clinical perspective on gastric neuroendocrine neoplasia. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 13:101–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kocha W, Maroun J, Kennecke H, Law C, Metrako P, Ouellet JF, Reid R, Rowsell C, Shah A, Singh S, Uum SV, Wong R (2010) Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of well-differentiated gastroenterohepatic neuroendocrine tumours: a revised statement from a Canadian National Expert Group. Curr Oncol 17(3):49–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Coppola D, Lloyd RV, Suster S (2010) The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: a review of nomenclature, grading and staging systems. Pancreas 39(6):707–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mengel M, von Wasielewski R, Wiese B, Rüdiger T, Müller-Hermelink HK, Kreipe H (2002) Inter-laboratory and inter-observer reproducibility of immunohistochemical assessment of the Ki-67 labelling index in a large multi-centre trial. J Pathol 198:292–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elie N, Plancoulaine B, Signolle J-P, Herlin P (2003) A simple way of quantifying immunostained cell nuclei on the whole histologic section. Cytometry A 56(1):37–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lejeune M, Jaén J, Pons L, López C, Salvadó M-T, Bosch R, Garcia M, Escrivà P, Baucells J, Cugat X, Álvaro T (2008) Quantification of diverse subcellular immunohistochemical markers with clinicobiological relevancies: validation of a new computer-assisted image analysis procedure. J Anat 212:868–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhall D, Frishberg DP, Galliano G, Chiles L, Chung F, Ines D, Wang HL (2009) Interobserver variability in assessing Ki-67 proliferative index in gastrointestinal well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms. Mod Pathol 22:116AGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goodell PP, Krasinskas AM, Davison JM, Hartman DJ (2012) Comparison of methods for proliferative index analysis for grading pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 137:576–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lowe K, Khithani A, Liu E, Winston T, Christian D, Saad J, Jeyarajah DR (2012) Ki-67 labeling: a more sensitive indicator of malignant phenotype than mitotic count or tumor size? J Surg Oncol 106(6):724–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, Krenning E, Oberg K, Steinmuller T, Anlauf M, Wiedenmann B, Salazar R et al (2012) ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology 95:157–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashlie Nadler
    • 1
  • Moises Cukier
    • 2
  • Corwyn Rowsell
    • 3
  • Sepideh Kamali
    • 4
  • Yael Feinberg
    • 5
  • Simron Singh
    • 6
  • Calvin H. L. Law
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of General SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Surgical Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  5. 5.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Division of Medical Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations