Skip to main content
Log in

Importance of Histologic Subtype in the Staging of Appendiceal Tumors

  • Regional Cancer Therapies
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Malignant neoplasms of the appendix have different behavior based on their histologic subtypes in anecdotal series. Current staging systems do not capture the diversity of histologic subtypes in predicting outcomes.

Methods

We queried all patients with appendiceal malignancies captured in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1973 to 2007. Tumors were classified as colonic type adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type, goblet cell carcinoid, and malignant carcinoid. We compared incidence, overall survival, and disease-specific survival for these tumors on the basis of patient, tumor, and therapy characteristics. Estimates from Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to predict hazard ratios for differing histologic subtypes with similar tumor, node, metastasis system (TNM) stages.

Results

Of the 5672 patients identified, we included 5655 (99%) in our analysis. The 5-year disease-specific survival rates were 93% for malignant carcinoid, 81% for goblet cell carcinoid, 55% for colonic type adenocarcinoma, 58% for mucinous adenocarcinoma, and 27% for signet ring cell type. Predicted estimates of adjusted hazard ratios revealed an 8-fold difference between histologic subtypes for similar TNM stages.

Conclusions

Histologic subtype is an important predictor of disease-specific survival and overall survival in patients with appendiceal neoplasms. Addition of the histologic subtype to the TNM staging is simple and may improve prognostication.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, Fielding LP. American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group. Cancer. 2000;88:1739–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jann H, Roll S, Couvelard A, Hentic O, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors of midgut and hindgut origin: tumor–node–metastasis classification determines clinical outcome. Cancer. 2011;117:3332–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Landry CS, Brock G, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM, Martin RC 2nd. Proposed staging system for colon carcinoid tumors based on an analysis of 2,459 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:874–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rindi G, Klöppel G, Couvelard A, et al. TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch. 2007;451:757–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins DC. 71,000 human appendix specimens. A final report, summarizing forty years’ study. Am J Proctol. 1963;14:265–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA, Haley RW. Disconnect between incidence of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management. Ann Surg. 2007;245:886–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McCusker ME, Coté TR, Clegg LX, Sobin LH. Primary malignant neoplasms of the appendix: a population-based study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results program, 1973–1998. Cancer. 2002;94:3307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sugarbaker PH. New standard of care for appendiceal epithelial neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei syndrome? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. http://seer.cancer.gov/about/.

  10. Koepsell T, Weiss N, editors. Epidemiological methods: studying the occurrence of illness. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McGory ML, Maggard MA, Kang H, O’Connell JB, Ko CY. Malignancies of the appendix: beyond case series reports. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Esquivel J, Elias D, Baratti D, Kusamura S, Deraco M. Consensus statement on the loco regional treatment of colorectal cancer with peritoneal dissemination. J Surg Oncol. 2008;98:263–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ, Shmookler BM, Sugarbaker PH, Young RH. The morphologic spectrum of ovarian metastases of appendiceal adenocarcinomas: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis of tumors often misinterpreted as primary ovarian tumors or metastatic tumors from other gastrointestinal sites. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:1144–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nathan H, Pawlik TM. Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:415–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kiran K. Turaga MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turaga, K.K., Pappas, S.G. & Gamblin, T.C. Importance of Histologic Subtype in the Staging of Appendiceal Tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 19, 1379–1385 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2238-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2238-1

Keywords

Navigation