10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix: A Clinicopathologic and Immunohistochemical Study with Focus on Novel Markers (Sst2–Sst5)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background. Gynecological neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are extremely rare, accounting for 1.2–2.4% of the NENs. The aim of this study was to test cervical NENs for novel markers of potential utility for differential diagnosis and target therapy. Methods. All cases of our center ( n = 16) were retrieved and tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for 12 markers including markers of neuroendocrine differentiation (chromogranin A, synaptophysin, CD56), transcription factors (CDX2 and TTF1), proteins p40, p63, p16INK4a, and p53, somatostatin receptors subtypes (SST2-SST5) and the proliferation marker Ki67 (MIB1). Results. All cases were poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), 10 small cell types (small cell–neuroendocrine carcinomas, SCNECs) and 6 large cell types (large cell–neuroendocrine carcinomas, LCNECs); in 3 cases a predominant associated adenocarcinoma component was observed. Neuroendocrine cancer cells expressed at least 2 of the 3 tested neuroendocrine markers; p16 was intensely expressed in 14 (87.5%) cases; SST5 in 11 (56.25%, score 2–3, in 9 cases); SST2 in 8 (50%, score 2–3 in 8), CDX2 in 8 (50%), TTF1 in 5 (31.25%), and p53 in 1 case (0.06%). P63 and p40 expressions were negative, with the exception of one case that showed moderate expression for p63. Conclusions. P40 is a more useful marker for the differential diagnosis compared to squamous cell carcinoma. Neither CDX2 nor TTF1 expression may help the differential diagnosis versus potential cervical metastasis. P16 expression may suggest a cervical origin of NEC; however, it must be always integrated by clinical and instrumental data. The expression of SST2 and SST5 could support a role for SSAs (Somatostatin Analogues) in the diagnosis and therapy of patients with cervical NECs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A common classification framework for neuroendocrine neoplasms: an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) expert consensus proposal

          The classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) differs between organ systems and currently causes considerable confusion. A uniform classification framework for NENs at any anatomical location may reduce inconsistencies and contradictions among the various systems currently in use. The classification suggested here is intended to allow pathologists and clinicians to manage their patients with NENs consistently, while acknowledging organ-specific differences in classification criteria, tumor biology, and prognostic factors. The classification suggested is based on a consensus conference held at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in November 2017 and subsequent discussion with additional experts. The key feature of the new classification is a distinction between differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), also designated carcinoid tumors in some systems, and poorly differentiated NECs, as they both share common expression of neuroendocrine markers. This dichotomous morphological subdivision into NETs and NECs is supported by genetic evidence at specific anatomic sites as well as clinical, epidemiologic, histologic, and prognostic differences. In many organ systems, NETs are graded as G1, G2, or G3 based on mitotic count and/or Ki-67 labeling index, and/or the presence of necrosis; NECs are considered high grade by definition. We believe this conceptual approach can form the basis for the next generation of NEN classifications and will allow more consistent taxonomy to understand how neoplasms from different organ systems inter-relate clinically and genetically.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology: contrasting Norway and North America.

            The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program has proven to be a significant resource in US neuroendocrine tumor (NET) epidemiology. Norway also holds a robust and detailed cancer registry: the Norwegian Registry of Cancer (NRC). SEER NET data were compared with corresponding NRC data in the time period 1993 to 2004 to determine whether there are differences in NET epidemiology between Norway and the United States. The SEER and NRC reported 17,312 and 2030 NETs, respectively. The overall Caucasian SEER NET incidence was 4.44, compared with 3.24 in the NRC. In the SEER white subset, bronchopulmonary NETs were the most common (incidence = 1.42; 32% of all NETs), compared with small intestinal NETs in the NRC (0.81; 26%). A marked increase in SEER NET incidence (37%-40%) was observed in the period 2000 to 2004, compared with 1993 to 1997; an even more pronounced increase (72%) was seen in the NRC. African Americans exhibited a remarkably high overall NET incidence of 6.50; furthermore, among African Americans, rectal NETs were most common (1.65; 27%). Small intestinal NET incidence was approximately 30% higher in men compared with women in all populations. The highest 5-year survival rates were for rectal NETs (74%-88%) in both databases, whereas prostatic NETs had the worst outcome (0%-23%). At diagnosis, NETs were localized in 27% to 46% of patients. NET incidence in the US Caucasian population and in Norway is similar, but considerably higher ( approximately 50%) among African Americans. NETs have been regarded as indolent tumors; however, the 5-year survival is only approximately 55%.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Interpretation of P53 Immunohistochemistry in Endometrial Carcinomas: Toward Increased Reproducibility

              P53 immunohistochemistry has evolved into an accurate surrogate reflecting the underlying TP53 mutation status of a tumor, and has utility in the diagnostic workup of endometrial carcinomas. Recent work predominantly carried out in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma has revealed 4 main patterns of p53 staining (normal/wild-type, complete absence, overexpression, and cytoplasmic); the latter 3 patterns are variably termed abnormal/aberrant/mutation-type and are strongly predictive of an underlying TP53 mutation. The aim of this review is to provide practical advice to pathologists regarding various aspects of p53 immunohistochemical staining. These include laboratory methods to optimize staining, a description of the different patterns of staining, advice regarding the interpretation, and reporting of p53 staining and practical uses of p53 staining in endometrial carcinoma diagnosis. Illustrations are provided to aid in the interpretational problems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                12 May 2020
                May 2020
                : 12
                : 5
                : 1211
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Woman, Child and Public Health Sciences, Gynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; frediano.inzani@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it (F.I.); angela.santoro@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it (A.S.); giuangel86@ 123456hotmail.it (G.A.); angefer001@ 123456gmail.com (A.F.); saveriaspadola@ 123456hotmail.it (S.S.); damiano.arciuolo@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it (D.A.); dr.valente.m@ 123456gmail.com (M.V.); angela.carlino@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it (A.C.); alessia.piermattei@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it (A.P.); guido.rindi@ 123456unicatt.it (G.R.)
                [2 ]ENETS Center of Excellence, Neuroendocrine Tumour (NET) Center, 00168 Rome, Italy
                [3 ]Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16100 Genoa, Italy; scaglione.giulia90@ 123456gmail.com
                [4 ]Oncological Gynaecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; giovanni.scambia@ 123456unicatt.it
                [5 ]Obstetric and Gynecologic Clinic Institute, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, 00168 Rome, Italy
                [6 ]Pathological Anatomy Institute, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, 00168 Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6964-5152
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-2052
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-9495
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0387-5921
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7164-4952
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2996-4404
                Article
                cancers-12-01211
                10.3390/cancers12051211
                7281076
                32408525
                165adbdb-fab1-4c10-b503-942e1e5aadd0
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 March 2020
                : 06 May 2020
                Categories
                Article

                gynecologic neuroendocrine neoplasms,adenocarcinoma,cervical cancer,immunohistochemistry,somatostatin receptors

                Comments

                Comment on this article