Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic and prognostic implications of the World Health Organization classification of neuroendocrine tumors

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Neuroendocrine differentiation of tumors is often difficult to establish. In the same manner, the evaluation of the prognostic role of neuroendocrine differentiation may constitute a relevant clinical problem. Although different classifications are used for neuroendocrine tumors (NET) of different origin, the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification of NET, originally proposed for gastroenteropancreatic tumors, has proved to be a practical tool to allow pathologists to uniform the diagnoses and re-classify these tumors into 3 main categories. Aim: The present study was carried out in order to evaluate diagnostic and prognostic implications of NET reclassification according to the last WHO classification of NET. Materials and methods: Thirty-one tumors with an initial diagnosis referable to a NET achieved before 1999 were independently evaluated by 3 pathologists on the basis of the 2000 WHO classification of NET. Immunohistochemistry for panneuroendocrine markers and Ki-67 was also performed in all cases. Results: Twelve, 14, and 4 tumors were respectively reclassified as well-differentiated NET, well-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma; 1 tumor was reclassified as mixed endocrine-exocrine tumor. Two or more neuroendocrine markers were expressed in all NET regardless of histotype, differentiation degree, and site of primary tumor. After revision, 10 of the 31 tumors under study (32%) changed histo-prognostic category when compared to the initial diagnosis. Ki-67 score was the best predictor of survival at the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The WHO classification is suitable to accurately reclassify tumors with an initial diagnosis referable to a NET and to separate these tumors in 3 well-distinct histo-prognostic categories with relevant clinical implications. Ki-67 score seems to be a better predictor of survival than the degree of differentiation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taal BG, Visser O. Epidemiology of neuroendocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology 2004, 80(Suppl 1): 3–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferolla P, Faggiano A, Avenia N, et al. Epidemiology of non-gastroenteropancreatic (neuro)endocrine tumours. Clin Endocrinol 2006, accepted for publication.

  3. Buchanan KD, Johnston CF, O’Hare MM. et al. Neuroendocrine tumors: an European view. Am J Med 1986, 81: 14–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaltsas GA, Besser GM, Grossman AB. The diagnosis and medical management of advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Rev 2004, 25: 458–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kwekkeboom DJ, Krenning EP, BakkerWH, Oei HY, Kooij PPM, Lamberts SWJ. Somatostatin analogue scintigraphy in carcinoid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 1993, 20: 283–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bombardieri E, Maccauro M, De Deckere E, Savelli G, Chiti A. Nuclear medicine imaging of neuroendocrine tumours. Ann Oncol 2001, 12(Suppl 2): S51–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Solcia E, Klöppel G, Sobin LH (eds). Histological Typing of Endocrine Tumours. World Health Organization International Histological Classification of Tumours. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moertel CG, Kvols LK, O’Connell MJ, Rubin J. Treatment of neuroendocrine carcinomas with combined etoposide and cisplatin. Evidence of major therapeutic activity in the anaplastic variants of these neoplasms. Cancer 1991, 68: 227–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Madeira I, Terris B, Voss M, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with endocrine tumours of the duodenopancreatic area. Gut 1998, 43: 422–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pelosi G, Bresaola E, Bogina G, et al. 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 1996, 27: 1124–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rindi G, Azzoni C, La Rosa S, et al. ECL cell tumor and poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma of the stomach: prognostic evaluation by pathological analysis. Gastroenterology 1999, 116: 532–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. de Herder WW, Hofland LJ, van der Lely AJ, Lamberts SW. Somatostatin receptors in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer 2003, 10: 451–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Janson ET, Oberg K. Neuroendocrine tumors — somatostatin receptor expression and somatostatin analog treatment. Cancer Chemother Biol Response Modif 2003, 21: 535–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bajetta E, Catena L, Procopio G, et al. Is the new WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumours useful for selecting an appropriate treatment? Ann Oncol 2005, 16: 1374–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hochwald SN, Zee S, Conlon KC, et al. 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, 1; 20: 2633–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rorstad O. Prognostic indicators for carcinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. J Surg Oncol 2005, 89: 151–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gentil Perret A, Mosnier JF, Buono JP, et al. The relationship between MIB-1 proliferation index and outcome in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Pathol 1998, 109: 286–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin O, Olgac S, Green I, Zakowski MF, Klimstra DS. Immunohistochemical staining of cytologic smears with MIB-1 helps distinguish low-grade from hight-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathos 2003, 120: 209–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Solcia E, Capella C, Buffa, et al. The contribution of immunohistochemistry to the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors. Semin Diagn Pathol 1984, 1: 285–96.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rode J, Dhillon AP, Doran JF, Jackson P, Thompson RJ. PGP 9.5, a new marker for human neuroendocrine tumours. Histopathology 1985, 9: 147–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rusch VW, Klimstra DS, Venkatraman ES. Molecular markers help characterize neuroendocrine lung tumors. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 62: 798–809.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wick MR. Immunohistology of neuroendocrine and neuro-ectodermal tumors. Semin Diagn Pathol 2000, 17: 194–203.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Baudin E, Bidart JM, Bachelot A, et al. Impact of chromogranin A measurement in the work-up of neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Oncol 2001, 12(Suppl 2): S79–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grimelius L. A silver nitrate stain for a2 cells in human pancreatic islets. Acta Soc Med Ups 1968, 75: 243–70.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Masson P. La glande endocrine de l’intestin chez l’homme. C R Acad Sci 1914, 158: 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Travis WD, Colby TV, Corrin B: Histological typing of lung and pleural tumours. In: World Health Organisation-International Histological Classification of Tumors. Berlin: Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Oberdorfer S. Karzinoide tumoren des Dunndarms. Frankf Z Pathol 1907, 1: 426–32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Williams ED, Sandler M. The classification of carcinoid tumours. Lancet 1963, 1: 238–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Volante M, Bozzalla-Cassione F, Papotti M. Somatostatin receptors and their interest in diagnostic pathology. Endocr Pathol 2004, 15: 275–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Younossian AB, Bründler MA, Tötsch M. Feasibility of the new WHO classification of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumours. Swiss Med Wkly 2002, 132: 535–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Capella C, Heitz PU, Hofler H, Solcia E, Kloppel G. Revised classification of neuroendocrine tumours of the lung, pancreas and gut. Virchows Arch 1995, 425: 547–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dadmanesh F, Sekihara T, Rosai J. Histologic typing of thymoma according to the new World Health Organization classification. Chest Surg Clin N Am 2001, 11: 407–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sobin LH. Histological typing of thyroid tumours. Histopathology 1990, 16: 513.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Harada M, Yokose T, Yoshida J, Nishiwaki Y, Nagai K. Immunohistochemical neuroendocrine differentiation is an independent prognostic factor in surgically resected large cell carcinoma of the lung. Lung Cancer 2002, 38: 177–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Eeden S, Quaedvlieg PF, Taal BG, Offerhaus GJ, Lamers CB, Van Velthuysen ML. Classification of low-grade neuroendocrine tumors of midgut and unknown origin. Hum Pathol 2002, 33: 1126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. La Rosa S, Sessa F, Capella C, et al. Prognostic criteria in nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine tumours. Virchows Arch 1996, 429: 323–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Clinical Endocrinology and Oncology, “Federico II” University of Naples, Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy

    A. Faggiano MD, F. Milone, G. Lombardi & A. Colao

  2. Department of Pathology, “Federico II” University of Naples, Naples

    G. Mansueto, M. L. Basso de del Caro & G. De Rosa

  3. Department of Internal Medicine and Endocrine Sciences, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    P. Ferolla

Authors
  1. A. Faggiano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Mansueto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Ferolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Milone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. L. Basso de del Caro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Lombardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Colao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. De Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Faggiano MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faggiano, A., Mansueto, G., Ferolla, P. et al. Diagnostic and prognostic implications of the World Health Organization classification of neuroendocrine tumors. J Endocrinol Invest 31, 216–223 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03345593

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03345593

Key-words

Search

Navigation