9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How to Classify Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors (PitNET)s in 2020

      review-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

          Adenohypophyseal tumors, which were recently renamed pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET), are mostly benign, but may present various behaviors: invasive, “aggressive” and malignant with metastases. They are classified into seven morphofunctional types and three lineages: lactotroph, somatotroph and thyrotroph (PIT1 lineage), corticotroph (TPIT lineage) or gonadotroph (SF1 lineage), null cell or immunonegative tumor and plurihormonal tumors. The WHO 2017 classification suggested that subtypes, such as male lactotroph, silent corticotroph and Crooke cell, sparsely granulated somatotroph, and silent plurihormonal PIT1 positive tumors, should be considered as “high risk” tumors. However, the prognostic impact of these subtypes and of each morphologic type remains controversial. In contrast, the French five-tiered classification, taking into account the invasion, the immuno-histochemical (IHC) type, and the proliferative markers (Ki-67 index, mitotic count, p53 positivity), has a prognostic value validated by statistical analysis in 4 independent cohorts. A standardized report for the diagnosis of pituitary tumors, integrating all these parameters, has been proposed by the European Pituitary Pathology Group (EPPG). In 2020, the pituitary pathologist must be considered as a member of the multidisciplinary pituitary team. The pathological diagnosis may help the clinician to adapt the post-operative management, including appropriate follow-up and early recognition and treatment of potentially aggressive forms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • 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

            Invasion of the cavernous sinus space in pituitary adenomas: endoscopic verification and its correlation with an MRI-based classification.

            OBJECT An important prognostic factor for the surgical outcome and recurrence of a pituitary adenoma is its invasiveness into parasellar tissue, particularly into the space of the cavernous sinus (CS). The aims of this study were to reevaluate the existing parasellar classifications using an endoscopic technique and to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes associated with each grade. METHODS The authors investigated 137 pituitary macroadenomas classified radiologically at least on one side as Grade 1 or higher (parasellar extension) and correlated the surgical findings using an endoscopic technique, with special reference to the invasiveness of the tumor into the CS. In each case, postoperative MRI was performed to evaluate the gross-total resection (GTR) rate and the rate of endocrinological remission (ER) in functioning adenomas. RESULTS The authors found a 16% rate of CS invasion during surgery for these macroadenomas. Adenomas radiologically classified as Grade 1 were found to be invasive in 1.5%, and the GTR/ER rate was 83%/88%. For Grade 2 adenomas, the rate of invasion was 9.9%, and the GTR/ER rate was 71%/60%. For Grade 3 adenomas, the rate of invasion was 37.9%, and the GTR/ER rate was 75%/33%. When the superior compartment of the CS (Grade 3A) was involved, the authors found a rate of invasion that was lower (p < 0.001) than that when the inferior compartment was involved (Grade 3B). The rate of invasion in Grade 3A adenomas was 26.5% with a GTR/ER rate of 85%/67%, whereas for Grade 3B adenomas, the rate of surgically observed invasion was 70.6% with a GTR/ER rate of 64%/0%. All of the Grade 4 adenomas were invasive, and the GTR/ER rate was 0%. A comparison of microscopic and endoscopic techniques revealed no difference in adenomas with Grade 1 or 4 parasellar extension. In Grade 2 adenomas, however, the CS was found by the endoscopic technique to be invaded in 9.9% and by microscopic evaluation to be invaded in 88% (p < 0.001); in Grade 3 adenomas, the difference was 37.9% versus 86%, respectively (p = 0.002). Grade 4 adenomas had a statistically significant lower rate of GTR than those of all the other grades. In case of ER only, Grade 1 adenomas had a statistically significant higher rate of remission than did Grade 3B and Grade 4 adenomas. CONCLUSIONS The proposed classification proved that with increasing grades, the likelihood of surgically observed invasion rises and the chance of GTR and ER decreases. The direct endoscopic view confirmed the low rate of invasion of Grade 1 adenomas but showed significantly lower rates of invasion in Grade 2 and 3 adenomas than those previously found using the microscopic technique. In cases in which the intracavernous internal carotid artery was encased (Grade 4), all the adenomas were invasive and the GTR/ER rate was 0%/0%. The authors suggest the addition of Grades 3A and 3B to distinguish the strikingly different outcomes of adenomas invading the superior CS compartments and those invading the inferior CS compartments.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A new prognostic clinicopathological classification of pituitary adenomas: a multicentric case-control study of 410 patients with 8 years post-operative follow-up.

              Pituitary adenomas are currently classified by histological, immunocytochemical and numerous ultrastructural characteristics lacking unequivocal prognostic correlations. We investigated the prognostic value of a new clinicopathological classification with grades based on invasion and proliferation. This retrospective multicentric case-control study comprised 410 patients who had surgery for a pituitary tumour with long-term follow-up. Using pituitary magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of cavernous or sphenoid sinus invasion, immunocytochemistry, markers of the cell cycle (Ki-67, mitoses) and p53, tumours were classified according to size (micro, macro and giant), type (PRL, GH, FSH/LH, ACTH and TSH) and grade (grade 1a: non-invasive, 1b: non-invasive and proliferative, 2a: invasive, 2b: invasive and proliferative, and 3: metastatic). The association between patient status at 8-year follow-up and age, sex, and classification was evaluated by two multivariate analyses assessing disease- or recurrence/progression-free status. At 8 years after surgery, 195 patients were disease-free (controls) and 215 patients were not (cases). In 125 of the cases the tumours had recurred or progressed. Analyses of disease-free and recurrence/progression-free status revealed the significant prognostic value (p < 0.001; p < 0.05) of age, tumour type, and grade across all tumour types and for each tumour type. Invasive and proliferative tumours (grade 2b) had a poor prognosis with an increased probability of tumour persistence or progression of 25- or 12-fold, respectively, as compared to non-invasive tumours (grade 1a). This new, easy to use clinicopathological classification of pituitary endocrine tumours has demonstrated its prognostic worth by strongly predicting the probability of post-operative complete remission or tumour progression and so could help clinicians choose the best post-operative therapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                22 February 2020
                February 2020
                : 12
                : 2
                : 514
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Lyon 1, University of Lyon, F-69000 Lyon, France; alexandre.vasiljevic@ 123456chu-lyon.fr (A.V.); gerald.raverot@ 123456chu-lyon.fr (G.R.);
                [2 ]Faculty of Medicine Lyon-Est, F-69372 Lyon, France
                [3 ]Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences Department, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; marielise.jaffrain@ 123456univaq.it
                [4 ]Neuroendocrinology, Neuromed Institute, IRCCS, 86077 Pozzilli, Italy
                [5 ]Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), INSERM U1052, CNRS UMR5286, University of Lyon, 69008 Lyon, France
                [6 ]Pathology department, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69677 Bron, France
                [7 ]Endocrinology Department, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69677 Bron, France; federico.roncaroli@ 123456manchester.ac.uk
                [8 ]Division of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester M13 3PL, UK; federico.roncaroli@ 123456manchester.ac.uk
                [9 ]Pathological Department, Foch Hospital, 40 rue Worth Suresnes, 92151 Suresnes, France; cm.villa@ 123456hopital-foch.org
                [10 ]INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR 8104, Paris Descartes University, Cochin Institute, 24 rue du Faubourg Saint Jacques, 75014 Paris, France
                [11 ]Endocrinology Department CHU de Liège, University of Liège, Sart Tilman B35, 4000 Liège, Belgium
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9517-338X
                Article
                cancers-12-00514
                10.3390/cancers12020514
                7072139
                32098443
                94fca331-77a5-48e9-97b4-39e74c0b176e
                © 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
                : 09 January 2020
                : 20 February 2020
                Categories
                Review

                pituitary adenoma,pituitary tumor,classification of pituitary neuroendocrine tumors,classification of pituitary tumors

                Comments

                Comment on this article