4.4 Article

Two Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors (PitNETs) with Very High Proliferation and TP53 Mutation - High-Grade PitNET or PitNEC?

期刊

ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 257-262

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12022-021-09693-y

关键词

Pituitary; Neuroendocrine carcinoma; PitNEC; PitNET

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report presents two pituitary neuroendocrine tumors with high Ki67 labeling indices and TP53 mutations. One of the tumors had bone and liver metastases. Traditionally, pituitary carcinomas are diagnosed based on the presence of metastases, while neuroendocrine neoplasms are classified based on differentiation and proliferation indices. The reclassification of PitNETs expands the understanding of pituitary neuroendocrine neoplasms.
We report two pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) with very high Ki67 labeling indices, many mitoses and TP53 mutation (nearly all tumor cell nuclei were positive for p53). One of the tumors had bone and liver metastases. One was a corticotroph cell tumor; the other was a lactotroph tumor. The classification of these tumors is the subject of this discussion. Traditionally, pituitary carcinomas are only diagnosed by demonstration of metastases according to the 2017 WHO classification. In contrast, neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas are classified as either well differentiated NETs that are graded as G1, G2, and G3 based on proliferation as determined by Ki67 indices of <= 3, 3-20 and > 20%, and/or < 2, 2-20, and > 20 mitoses per 10 high-power field respectively, or as neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) that are poorly differentiated neoplasms with mitoses > 20/HPF and/or a Ki67 index > 20%. With the reclassificiation of PitNETs, in our opinion, the adequate term for the well-differentiated corticotroph tumor that we report is a PitNET G3, whereas the undifferentiated prolactin tumor should be classified as PitNEC. This report expands the spectrum of pituitary neuroendocrine neoplasms.

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

4.4
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