This paper briefly illustrates the basis, rules of application, and present outcome of the current World Health Organization (WHO) classification for neuroendocrine neoplasms. Established in 2010 upon the proposal from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), the WHO 2010 fostered some definitional changes (most notably the use of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) instead of carcinoid) and indicated the tools of grading and staging. Specific rules for its application were also defined. The data generated from the use of WHO 2010 classification substantially endorsed its rules and prognostic efficacy. In addition, the application demonstrated some issues, among which are the possible re-definition of the cutoff for grading G1 vs G2, as well as the possible identification of cases with somewhat different clinical behavior within the G3 neuroendocrine cancer class. Overall, since the recent introduction of WHO 2010 grading and staging, it appears wise to keep the current descriptors to avoid unnecessary confusion and to generate comparable data. Homogenous data on large series are ultimately needed to solve such issues.
Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Interdisciplinary Center for Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes, Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany. firstname.lastname@example.org
Dipartimento di Patologia e, Medicina di Laboratorio, Sezione di Anatomia Patologica, Università di Parma, Via Gramsci, 14, 43100, Parma, Italy, and Department of Internal Medicine, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. email@example.com
The need for standards in the management of patients with endocrine tumors of the digestive system prompted the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) to organize a first Consensus Conference, which was held in Frascati (Rome) and was based on the recently published ENETS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Here, we report the tumor-node-metastasis proposal for foregut NETs of the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas that was designed, discussed, and consensually approved at this conference. In addition, we report the proposal for a working formulation for the grading of digestive NETs based on mitotic count and Ki-67 index. This proposal, which needs to be validated, is meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment, and follow-up of patients.
Cites: Digestion. 2000;62 Suppl 1:19-2610940683
Cites: Ann Oncol. 2006 Mar;17(3):461-616364959
Cites: Cancer. 2001 Oct 15;92(8):2204-1011596039
Cites: Int J Cancer. 2001 Nov 1;94(3):444-811745428
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jun 1;20(11):2633-4212039924
Criteria for the staging and grading of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of midgut and hindgut origin were established at the second Consensus Conference in Frascati (Rome) organized by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS). The proposed tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classifications are based on the recently published ENETS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of gastroenteropancreatic NETs and follow our previous proposal for foregut tumors. The new TNM classifications for NETs of the ileum, appendix, colon, and rectum, and the grading system were designed, discussed, and consensually approved by all conference participants. These proposals need to be validated and are meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment and follow-up of patients.
Both the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) and the International Union for Cancer Control/American Joint Cancer Committee/World Health Organization (UICC/AJCC/WHO) have proposed TNM staging systems for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. This study aims to identify the most accurate and useful TNM system for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.
The study included 1072 patients who had undergone previous surgery for their cancer and for which at least 2 years of follow-up from 1990 to 2007 was available. Data on 28 variables were collected, and the performance of the two TNM staging systems was compared by Cox regression analysis and multivariable analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Differences in distribution of sex and age were observed for the ENETS TNM staging system. At Cox regression analysis, only the ENETS TNM staging system perfectly allocated patients into four statistically significantly different and equally populated risk groups (with stage I as the reference; stage II hazard ratio [HR] of death = 16.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.14 to 123, P = .007; stage III HR of death = 51.81, 95% CI = 7.11 to 377, P