Cargando…
Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) mostly depend on tumor stage and grade, determined by Ki-67 labeling index. EUS-FNA is considered the gold-standard technique to obtain it. The aims of our study were to establish diagnostic accuracy of preoperativ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34677159 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00261 |
_version_ | 1784589731180314624 |
---|---|
author | Tacelli, Matteo Petrone, Maria Chiara Capurso, Gabriele Muffatti, Francesca Andreasi, Valentina Partelli, Stefano Doglioni, Claudio Falconi, Massimo Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio |
author_facet | Tacelli, Matteo Petrone, Maria Chiara Capurso, Gabriele Muffatti, Francesca Andreasi, Valentina Partelli, Stefano Doglioni, Claudio Falconi, Massimo Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio |
author_sort | Tacelli, Matteo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) mostly depend on tumor stage and grade, determined by Ki-67 labeling index. EUS-FNA is considered the gold-standard technique to obtain it. The aims of our study were to establish diagnostic accuracy of preoperative EUS-FNA Ki-67 evaluation considering final pathological assessment on surgical specimen as gold standard and to investigate the possible impact on prognosis of misclassification. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from a prospectively collected database. EUS-FNA grading (eG) and surgical one (sG) measured according to Ki-67 proliferative index values, according to 2017 WHO classification, were compared. eG-sG correlation was evaluated by Spearman index. Logistic regression investigated factors associated with misclassification. Prognostic difference in terms of progression-free survival was evaluated by Kaplan Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve PanNENs patients enrolled. In 13.4% of patients (15/112) EUS-FNA “undergraded” patients (eG1 vs. sG2), while in 12.5% (n = 14) it “overgraded” PanNENs (eG2 to sG1). No misclassifications in G3 patients. In patients with tumors <20 mm (n = 44), 2 (4.5%) eG1 and 10 (22.7%) eG2 were finally classified respectively as G2 and G1 at surgical histology. No factors, as i.e. the lesions’ size or their morphological aspect, were associated with misclassification. In overgraded PanNENs, no progression occurred, while in patients correctly classified/undergraded the progression rate was 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest cohort of surgical PanNENs with preoperative EUS-FNA grading evaluation. Despite an acceptable eG-sG correlation, about 25% of patients are misclassified. Clinical impact of misclassification should be carefully considered especially in small tumors undergoing observation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8544016 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85440162021-11-09 Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification Tacelli, Matteo Petrone, Maria Chiara Capurso, Gabriele Muffatti, Francesca Andreasi, Valentina Partelli, Stefano Doglioni, Claudio Falconi, Massimo Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio Endosc Ultrasound Original Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) mostly depend on tumor stage and grade, determined by Ki-67 labeling index. EUS-FNA is considered the gold-standard technique to obtain it. The aims of our study were to establish diagnostic accuracy of preoperative EUS-FNA Ki-67 evaluation considering final pathological assessment on surgical specimen as gold standard and to investigate the possible impact on prognosis of misclassification. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from a prospectively collected database. EUS-FNA grading (eG) and surgical one (sG) measured according to Ki-67 proliferative index values, according to 2017 WHO classification, were compared. eG-sG correlation was evaluated by Spearman index. Logistic regression investigated factors associated with misclassification. Prognostic difference in terms of progression-free survival was evaluated by Kaplan Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve PanNENs patients enrolled. In 13.4% of patients (15/112) EUS-FNA “undergraded” patients (eG1 vs. sG2), while in 12.5% (n = 14) it “overgraded” PanNENs (eG2 to sG1). No misclassifications in G3 patients. In patients with tumors <20 mm (n = 44), 2 (4.5%) eG1 and 10 (22.7%) eG2 were finally classified respectively as G2 and G1 at surgical histology. No factors, as i.e. the lesions’ size or their morphological aspect, were associated with misclassification. In overgraded PanNENs, no progression occurred, while in patients correctly classified/undergraded the progression rate was 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest cohort of surgical PanNENs with preoperative EUS-FNA grading evaluation. Despite an acceptable eG-sG correlation, about 25% of patients are misclassified. Clinical impact of misclassification should be carefully considered especially in small tumors undergoing observation. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8544016/ /pubmed/34677159 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00261 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Endoscopic Ultrasound https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tacelli, Matteo Petrone, Maria Chiara Capurso, Gabriele Muffatti, Francesca Andreasi, Valentina Partelli, Stefano Doglioni, Claudio Falconi, Massimo Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title | Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title_full | Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title_short | Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of eus-fna in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: possible clinical impact of misclassification |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34677159 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00261 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tacellimatteo diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT petronemariachiara diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT capursogabriele diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT muffattifrancesca diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT andreasivalentina diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT partellistefano diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT doglioniclaudio diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT falconimassimo diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification AT arcidiaconopaologiorgio diagnosticaccuracyofeusfnaintheevaluationofpancreaticneuroendocrineneoplasmsgradingpossibleclinicalimpactofmisclassification |