Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Original ArticleCytological features contributing to the misclassification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
Introduction
Pancreatic neuroendocrine (NE) neoplasms represent a biologically diverse group of functional, nonfunctional, and hereditary tumors with behavior ranging from indolent to aggressive. The recent widespread use of high-resolution imaging techniques has identified an increasing number of asymptomatic patients with small, incidentally detected, and nonfunctioning tumors.1, 2 The 2010 WHO classification for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract defined two distinct subgroups of tumor differentiation for pancreatic NE neoplasms: well-differentiated pancreatic NE tumors (WD-PanNETs) and poorly differentiated pancreatic NE carcinomas (PD-NECs) (Table 1). The distinction is based on biological differences, carries crucial prognostic implications, and poses a specific impact on therapeutic strategies. The 2010 WHO classification further designates three tumor grades based on the mitotic rate and Ki67 proliferative index (KI) (Table 1).3 WD-PanNET is a heterogeneous entity and clinical management decisions consider patient symptoms and volume of disease. Currently, the distinction of low versus intermediate grade tumors is not crucial but it may impact some treatment decisions.5 In contrast, PD-NECs have a uniformly aggressive clinical behavior similar to small-cell lung cancer and are generally managed with cytotoxic chemotherapy.6
Cytology may be the primary diagnostic material guiding initial management for these tumors because they are readily accessed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which performs well in localizing small lesions.7, 8 A number of factors influence the cytopathologist’s ability to reliably recognize NE neoplasms, including low incidence, atypical clinical presentation, morphologic mimics, and artifacts associated with the biopsy procedure. Historically, reporting of these tumors has not been straightforward because of the diversity of diagnostic terms across systems of nomenclature and a lack of standards for a primary diagnostic category that conveyed biologic potential.
We aimed to retrospectively review our institutional experience with pancreatic NE cytology diagnosis. We evaluated accuracy in tumor typing, identified factors contributing to misclassification, and examined rates of cytology reporting for tumor differentiation and grade.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
We retrospectively searched the pathology archive at our institution for all pancreas FNA specimens with a corresponding histologic specimen from the same pancreatic anatomic site during the time interval January 1994 through March 2012; all diagnoses were recorded. Patients with a cytology or histology diagnosis of a “tumor”, “neoplasm”, or “carcinoma” of “endocrine” or ”neuroendocrine” type (including islet cell tumor) were selected for inclusion. The search yielded cytology specimens
Results
In the 18-year period studied, 143 patients with cytology and histology samples from the same pancreatic anatomic site and a diagnosis of a tumor, neoplasm, or carcinoma of endocrine/NE type (including islet cell tumor) from either type of specimen were identified. A summary of clinical data for patients with a histologic diagnosis of NE neoplasm is shown in Table 2. The cytology comprised 153 pancreas FNAs (including 10 repeat biopsies). The diagnostic categories were distributed as follows:
Discussion
Cytology, most commonly via EUS-FNA, is sometimes the only pathologic diagnosis for patients with pancreatic lesions. This places considerable responsibility on cytopathologists for providing accurate diagnoses to guide appropriate clinical management. Accuracy for determining a NE neoplasm in this study was 78%. This rate is at the lower range of prior studies (79%-90%) that have used diverse methods of case selection and analytic methods,7, 9, 10 and this could be due to our inclusion of
Funding sources
DK has consulting fees from Wren Laboratories and royalties from American Registry of Pathology and UpToDate.
Conflict of interest disclosures
The authors have no financial disclosures.
Acknowledgments
Cymra McBean and Tanisha Daniel provided administrative assistance for the study and proofreading of the article.
References (26)
- et al.
Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) Status of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer
Surg Oncol Clin N Am
(2010)- et al.
Ki-67 grading of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors on histologic samples obtained by EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition: a prospective study
Gastrointest Endosc
(2012) - et al.
Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients
Mod Pathol
(2010) - 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) - et al.
Relapse-free survival in patients with nonmetastatic, surgically resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of the AJCC and ENETS staging classifications
Ann Surg
(2012) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system
(2010)- et al.
TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system
Virchows Arch
(2007) Systemic therapy for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an update
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
(2012)- et al.
Treatment of neuroendocrine carcinomas with combined etoposide and cisplatin: evidence of major therapeutic activity in the anaplastic variants of these neoplasms
Cancer
(1991)
EUS-FNA for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a tertiary cancer center experience
Dig Dis Sci
Performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
Cytojournal
Diagnostic error assessment and associated harm of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas
Cancer Cytopathol
Cited by (7)
Diversity and pitfalls of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A case series of cytologic-histologic correlation
2022, Human Pathology ReportsCitation Excerpt :Traditionally, SPNs and PanNETs are thought to have only a slightly enlarged, monomorphous population. Granular cytoplasm and anisonucleosis can be attributed to SPNs as well as PanNETs [4,22], and more pronounced anisonucleosis is attributed to adenocarcinomas [23]. In the absence of more conclusive architecture and cytologic features (nuclear grooves, hyaline globules, etc.), the distinction between these entities becomes more challenging.
Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the ovary: A review of 63 cases
2024, International Journal of Gynecological CancerNon-Ductal Tumors of the Pancreas
2020, Monographs in Clinical CytologyReclassification of lesions in biopsies by fine-needle aspiration of pancreas and biliary tree using Papanicolaou classification
2018, Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
- 1
Present address: Department of Pathology, Trinity Hospital of Augusta, 2321 Kings Way, Augusta, GA 30904 USA.