4.0 Article

Accuracy of grading pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with Ki-67 index in fine-needle aspiration cellblock material

Journal

CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 187-193

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12643

Keywords

cytology; Ki-67 proliferation index; mitotic index; pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour; tumour grading

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the preoperative tumour grade of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNENs) by determining the Ki-67 index in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) material and to correlate the preoperative tumour grade with the postoperative tumour grade in surgical specimens. Methods We performed a retrospective review of the institutional pathology database over a 10-year period (2007-2017) to identify all cases of panNENs with corresponding preoperative EUS-FNA cytological material and surgical specimens. Fifteen cases with adequate EUS-FNA material (more than 400 tumour cells on cellblock) were identified. The cytological and histological samples were graded based on the mitotic rate and the Ki-67 index in accordance with the 2017 World Health Organisation grading system for panNENs. The tumour grades determined on EUS-FNA cellblock material were compared with the histological tumour grades. Results Mean age at diagnosis was 64.8 +/- 12.7 years (range, 38-85 years). The grading scores assigned to the cytological and histological samples were concordant in all 15 (100%) cases. Of those, two (13%) cases were scored as grade 1, nine (60%) cases as grade 2 and four (27%) cases as grade 3 tumours. Conclusion Our study shows that tumour grade in patients with PanNENs can be reliably determined by assessing the Ki-67 index in EUS-FNA specimens based on the 2017 World Health Organisation classification and grading system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available