Advertisement

Ki-67 is a powerful tool for grading neuroendocrine tumors among Egyptian patients: a 10-year experience

Original Article - Cancer Research

Abstract

Background

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) arise in most organs of the body and share many common pathologic features. However, a variety of organ-specific systems have been developed for nomenclature, grading and staging of NETs, causing much confusion. In collaboration with WHO, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) recommended the use of either mitotic rate or Ki-67 labeling index (LI) for grading and classification. We aim to explore the profile of NETs in Egyptian patients and apply the ENETS system.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was carried out on all cases of NETs diagnosed at the Pathology Department, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, during the period from January 2000 to December 2009. Data about age, sex, anatomic site of tumor, tumor size, tumor stage and presence of nodal metastasis were retrieved. Ki-67 immunostaining and grading according to ENETS were done.

Results

There was a trend toward increased mean age and tumor size and grade according to Ki-67, with significant statistical difference (p < 0.001 and 0.036, respectively). Estimation of mitotic count and Ki-67 LI was strongly associated with NET histopathologic types, but this association was stronger regarding Ki-67 LI than mitotic count (p = 0.002 and 0.035, respectively). On the other hand, there was discordance between grading according to mitotic count and grading according to Ki-67 LI in relation to NET histopathologic subtypes. Concordance between mitotic rate and Ki-67 LI was reported in 18.89 % of cases, while discordance occurred in 81.11 % of cases and was more prevalent in G3.

Conclusion

Ki-67 is a reliable and reproducible marker for grading of NETs and more superior than mitotic rate.

Keywords

Neuroendocrine tumors Grading Ki-67 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. Capella C, Heitz PU, Hofler H et al (1995) Revised classification of neuroendocrine tumors of the lung, pancreas and gut. Virchows Arch 425(6):547–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Capella C, Solcia E, Sobin LH, Arnold R (2000) Endocrine tumors of small intestine. In: Hamilton SR, Aeltonen LA (eds) WHO classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumors of the digestive system. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 77–82Google Scholar
  3. Dhall D, Mertens R, Bresee C, Parakh R et al (2012) Ki-67 proliferative index predicts progression free survival of patients with well differentiated ileal neuroendocrine tumors. Hum Pathol 43(4):489–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (2010) American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York, pp 241–249Google Scholar
  5. Gosset A, Masson P (1914) Tumeurs endocrine de l’appendices. Presse Medicale 5:237Google Scholar
  6. Hauso O, Gustafsson BI, Kidd M et al (2008) Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology: contrasting Norway and North America. Cancer 113(10):2655–2664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Henning J, Stephanie R, Anne C, Olivia H et al (2011) Neuroendocrine tumors of midgut and hindgut origin: tumor-node-metastasis classification determines clinical outcome. Cancer 117(15):3332–3341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heymann MF, Joubert M, Nemeth J et al (2000) Prognostic and immunohistochemical validation of the Capella classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of 82 sporadic cases. Histopathology 36(5):421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kloppel G, Perren A, Heitz PU (2004) The gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine cell system and its tumors. The WHO classification. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1014:13–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lawrence B, Gustafsson BI, Chan A et al (2011) The epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 40(1):1–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. LIoyd RV (1983) Specific endocrine tissue marker defined by a monoclonal antibody. Science 222:628–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller K (2002) Immunohistochemical techniques. In: Bancroft JD, Gamble M (eds) Theory and practice of histological techniques, 5th edn. Churchill, Livingstone, pp 421–464Google Scholar
  13. Modlin IM, Lye KD, Kidd M (2003a) A 5-decade analysis of 13,715 carcinoid tumors. Cancer 97(4):934–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Modlin IM, Lye KD, Kidd M (2003b) A 5-decade analysis of 13,715 carcinoid tumors. Cancer 97(4):934–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Pearse AGE (1969) The cytochemistry and ultrastructure of polypeptide-hormone producing cells of the APUD-series and the embryologic, physiologic and pathologic implication of the concept. J Histochem Cytochem 22:237–240Google Scholar
  16. Rindi G, Leiter AB, Kopin AS, Bordi C, Solcia E (2004) The ‘normal’ endocrine cells of the gut. Changing concepts and new evidences. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1014:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rindi G, Kloppel G, Alhman H et al (2006) TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 449(4):395–401CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rindi G, Kloppel G, Couvelard A et al (2007) TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 45(14):756–762Google Scholar
  19. Rindi G, Arnold R, Bosman FT, et al. (2010) Nomenclature and classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms of the digestive system. In: Bosman TF, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (eds) WHO Classification of tumors of the digestive system, 4th ed. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, 39(6): 707–712Google Scholar
  20. Solcia E, Kloppel G, Sobin LH (in collaboration with 9 pathologists from 4 countries) (2000) Histological typing of endocrine tumors. In: International histological classification of tumors, 2 ndedn, WHO. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. Travis WD (2004) The concept of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. In: Travis WD, Brambilla E, Muller-Hermelink HK, Harris CC (eds) WHO classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumors of lung, pleura, thymus and heart. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 19–20Google Scholar
  22. Wiedenmann B, Franke WW, Kuhn C, Moll R, Gould VE (1986) Synaptophysin: marker protein for neuroendocrine cells and neoplasms. PNAS 83(10):3500–3504CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. William T, Dorothy GJ, Kari C, John C et al (2008) The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for the inclusion of bronchopulmonary carcinoid tumors in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 3(11):1213–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yachida S, Vakiani E, White CM, Zhong Y et al (2012) Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Path 36(2):173–184CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A et al (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(18):3063–3072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pathology Department, National Cancer InstituteCairo UniversityGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations