4.5 Article

Prognostic Significance of Defining L-Cell Type on the Biologic Behavior of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors in Relation with Pathological Parameters

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 813-822

出版社

KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2014.238

关键词

Rectal neoplasms; Neuroendocrine tumors; L cells; I mmunohistochemistry; Survival; International Classification of Diseases

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In 2010, the World Health Organization categorized L-cell type neuroendocrine tumors (NETS) as tumors of uncertain malignancy, while all others were classified as malignant. However, the diagnostic necessity of L-cell immunophenotyping is unclear, as are tumor stage and grade that may guide diagnosis and management. To clarify the predictive markers of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) was analyzed by pathological parameters including L-cell phenotype. Materials and Methods A total of 2,385 rectal NENs were analyzed from our previous multicenter study and a subset of 170 rectal NENs was immunophenotyped. Results In univariate survival analysis, tumor grade (p < 0.0001), extent (p < 0.0001), size (p < 0.0001), lymph node metastasis (p=0.0063), and L-cell phenotype (p < 0.0001) showed significant correlation with the prognosis of rectal NENs; however, none of these markers achieved independent significance in multivariate analysis. The 10-year OS of tumors of NET grade 1, < 10 mm, the mucosa/submucosa was 97.58%, 99.47%, and 99.03%, respectively. [Cell marker, glucagon II (GLP-1&2), with a cut off score of > 10, is useful in defining [Cell type. In this study, an L-cell immunophenotype was found in 83.5% of all rectal NENs and most, but not all L-cell type tumors were NET G1, small (< 10 mm) and confined to the mucosa/submucosa. Conclusion From these results, the biological behavior of rectal NENs does not appear to be determined by [cell type alone but instead by a combination of pathological parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据