Can PPH3 be helpful to assess the discordant grade in primary and metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?

Anti-phosphohistone H3 (PHH3) as a proliferation marker to assess mitotic activity and to grade neuroendocrine neoplasms of hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) system

BACKGROUND

The world health organization (WHO) classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs, i.e. neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs)) of the gastrointestinal system involves grading of these tumors by mitotic count (i.e. H and E mitotic index or Haematoxylin and Eosin mitotic index [HE-MI] and Mindbomb E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 labelling index (MIB1-LI) into Grade 1 (G1), Grade 2 (G2), or Grade 3 (G3). However, the assessment of HE-MI and MIB1-LI is hindered by several factors that contribute to discordance between these two grading methods. Clinical data demonstrate the dependency of prognosis on grade.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the grading of NENs of the hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) system using Anti-phosphohistone H3 mitotic index (i.e. PHH3-MI), HE-MI and MIB1-LI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a cohort of 140 NENs selected from January 2011 to August 2019, the concordance and correlation between HE-MI, MIB1-LI and PHH3-MI grading methods were analysed using Cohen's weighted kappa ( κ ) statistics and Spearman's correlation (ρ), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and cut-off analyses were done to determine optimal PHH3-MI cut-off values to grade NENs.

RESULTS

The rates of discordance between HE-MI vs. MIB1-LI, PHH3-MI vs. MIB1-LI and PHH3-MI vs. HE-MI were 52% ( κ =0.416), 29% ( κ =0.64) and 41% ( κ =0.508), respectively. There was a significant correlation between the grading methods. PHH3-MI had good overall sensitivity and specificity at cut-offs 2 and 17 in distinguishing between G1 vs. G2, and G2 vs. G3 tumors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PHH3 immunolabeling allowed for quick and easy identification of mitotic figures (MF). It had the highest concordance with MIB1-LI. At cut-off values of 2 and 17, there was good overall sensitivity and specificity. The interobserver agreement was excellent.

Assessment of the current and emerging criteria for the histopathological classification of lung neuroendocrine tumours in the lungNENomics project

BACKGROUND

Six thoracic pathologists reviewed 259 lung neuroendocrine tumours (LNETs) from the lungNENomics project, with 171 of them having associated survival data. This cohort presents a unique opportunity to assess the strengths and limitations of current World Health Organization (WHO) classification criteria and to evaluate the utility of emerging markers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were diagnosed based on the 2021 WHO criteria, with atypical carcinoids (ACs) defined by the presence of focal necrosis and/or 2-10 mitoses per 2 mm2. We investigated two markers of tumour proliferation: the Ki-67 index and phospho-histone H3 (PHH3) protein expression, quantified by pathologists and automatically via deep learning. Additionally, an unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to uncover previously unnoticed morphological features with diagnostic value.

RESULTS

The accuracy in distinguishing typical from ACs is hampered by interobserver variability in mitotic counting and the limitations of morphological criteria in identifying aggressive cases. Our study reveals that different Ki-67 cut-offs can categorise LNETs similarly to current WHO criteria. Counting mitoses in PHH3+ areas does not improve diagnosis, while providing a similar prognostic value to the current criteria. With the advantage of being time efficient, automated assessment of these markers leads to similar conclusions. Lastly, state-of-the-art deep learning modelling does not uncover undisclosed morphological features with diagnostic value.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the mitotic criteria can be complemented by manual or automated assessment of Ki-67 or PHH3 protein expression, but these markers do not significantly improve the prognostic value of the current classification, as the AC group remains highly unspecific for aggressive cases. Therefore, we may have exhausted the potential of morphological features in classifying and prognosticating LNETs. Our study suggests that it might be time to shift the research focus towards investigating molecular markers that could contribute to a more clinically relevant morpho-molecular classification.

Chinese expert consensus on multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine liver metastases

Many management strategies are available for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with liver metastases. However, a lack of biological, molecular, and genomic information and an absence of data from rigorous trials limit the validity of these strategies. This review presents the viewpoints from an international conference consisting of several expert working groups. The working groups reviewed a series of questions of particular interest to clinicians taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with liver metastases by reviewing the existing management strategies and literature, evaluating the evidence on which management decisions were based, developing internationally acceptable recommendations for clinical practice, and making recommendations for clinical and research endeavors. The review for each question will be followed by recommendations from the panel.

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Pancreas: Diagnostic Challenges and Practical Approach

Most pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are slow-growing, and the patients may survive for many years, even after distant metastasis. The tumors usually display characteristic organoid growth patterns with typical neuroendocrine morphology. A smaller portion of the tumors follows a more precipitous clinical course. The classification has evolved from morphologic patterns to the current World Health Organization classification, with better-defined grading and prognostic criteria. Recent advances in molecular pathology have further improved our understanding of the pathogenesis of these tumors. Various issues and challenges remain, including the correct recognition of a neuroendocrine neoplasm, accurate classification and grading of the tumor, and differentiation from mimickers. This review focuses on the practical aspects during the workup of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms and attempts to provide a general framework to help achieve an accurate diagnosis, classification, and grading.

A real-life treatment cohort of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: High-grade increase in metastases confers poor survival

BACKGROUND

Tumor grade determined by the Ki67 index is the best prognostic factor for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs). However, we often observe that the grade of metastases differs from that of their primary tumors. This study aimed to investigate the frequency of grade changes between primary tumors and metastases, explore its association with clinical characteristics, and correlate the findings with the prognosis.

METHODS

Six hundred forty-eight patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms treated at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were screened for inclusion, and 103 patients with PanNETs who had paired primary tumors and metastases with an available Ki67 index were included. Re-evaluation of Ki67 was performed on 98 available samples from 69 patients.

RESULTS

Fifty cases (48.5%) had a Ki67 index variation, and 18 cases (17.5%) displayed a grade increase. Metachronous metastases showed significantly higher Ki67 index variation than synchronous metastases (P=0.028). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that high-grade metastases compared to low-grade primary tumors were significantly associated with decreased progression-free survival (PFS, P=0.012) and overall survival (OS, P=0.027). Multivariable Cox regression analyses demonstrated that a low-grade increase to high-grade was an unfavorable and independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS (P=0.010, and P=0.041, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A high-grade increase in metastases was an unfavorable predictor of PanNETs, which emphasized the importance of accurate pathological grading and could provide a reference for clinical decision-making.

Digital Image Analysis of the Proliferation Markers Ki67 and Phosphohistone H3 in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Accuracy of Grading Compared With Routine Manual Hot Spot Evaluation of the Ki67 Index

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are rare epithelial neoplasms. Grading is based on mitotic activity or the percentage of Ki67-positive cells in a hot spot. Routine methods have poor intraobserver and interobserver consistency, and objective measurements are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate digital image analysis (DIA) as an objective assessment of proliferation markers in GEP-NENs. A consecutive cohort of patients with automated DIA measurement of Ki67 (DIA Ki67) and phosphohistone H3 (DIA PHH3) on immunohistochemical slides was analyzed using Visiopharm image analysis software (Hoersholm, Denmark). The results were compared with the Ki67 index from routine pathology reports (pathology Ki67). The study included 159 patients (57% males). The median pathology Ki67 was 2.0% and DIA Ki67 was 4.1%. The interclass correlation coefficient of the DIA Ki67 compared with the pathology Ki67 showed an excellent agreement of 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.96]. The observed kappa value was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) when comparing grades based on the same methods. PHH3 was measured in 145 (91.2%) cases. The observed kappa value was 0.74. (95% CI: 0.65-0.83) when comparing grade based on the DIA PHH3 and the pathology Ki67. The DIA Ki67 shows excellent agreement with the pathology Ki67. The DIA PHH3 measurements were more varied and cannot replace other methods for grading GEP-NENs.

Dictating genomic destiny: Epigenetic regulation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours are a diverse group of neoplasms with an increasingly well-defined genomic basis. Despite this, much of what drives this disease is still unknown and epigenetic influences represent the next tier of gene, and hence disease modifiers that are of unquestionable importance. Moreover, they are of arguably more significance than the genes themselves given their malleable nature and potential to be exploited for not only diagnosis and prognosis, but also therapy. This review summarises what is known regarding the key epigenetic modifiers of disease through the domains of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment.

[Classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Changes made in the 2017 WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs and perspectives for the future]

The WHO classification of the tumors of endocrine organs, published in July 2017, has introduced significant changes in the classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the previous version of which has appeared in 2010, within the WHO classification of the tumors of the digestive system. The main change is the introduction of a new category of well-differentiated neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors G3, in addition to the previous categories of neuroendocrine tumors G1 and G2. The differential diagnosis between neuroendocrine tumors G3 (well-differentiated) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (poorly-differentiated) might be difficult; the authors of the WHO classification therefore suggest the use of a number of immunohistochemical markers to facilitate the distinction between the two entities. The other changes are: (a) the modification of the threshold between neuroendocrine tumors G1 and G2, now set at 3%; (b) the terminology used for mixed tumors: the previous term mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) is substituted by the term mixed neuroendocrine-non neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN). Finally, the recommendations for Ki-67 index evaluation are actualized. Even if these changes only concern, stricto sensu, the neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic location, they will probably be applied, de facto, for all digestive neuroendocrine tumors. The revision of the histological classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors coincides with the revision of their UICC TNM staging; significant changes have been made in the criteria for T3 and T4 stages. Our professional practices have to take into account all these modifications.