Practice patterns for reporting digestive system neuroendocrine neoplasms: results from a large, comprehensive international survey

AimsCriteria for the interpretation of digestive system neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) continue to evolve. Although there are some literature recommendations regarding workup and diagnosis of these lesions, different practice patterns exist among pathologists when signing out these specimens. The aim of this study was to assess practice trends among pathologists worldwide when reporting these neoplasms. Methods and resultsWe created an online survey with multiple questions pertaining to digestive NENs. The results were analysed based on type of practice setting, years of sign-out experience, and practice location. Respondents included 384 practicing pathologists: 70% academic, 30% private practice; 63% gastrointestinal (GI) pathology-subspecialised, 37% not; 39% North American, 42% European, 19% others; 45% with <= 10 years in practice; 55% with >10 years. Some question responses were chosen by the majority (e.g. 85% use both mitotic count and Ki67 index for grading NENs, 82% complete a synoptic, and Ki67 stain even for small incidental appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours [NETs], and 96% utilize the diagnosis of grade 3 NET). However, some questions showed varying responses, including counting mitotic figures, Ki67 stain interpretation, and pancreatic grade 3 NEN workup. Pathologists also had some variability in interpreting regional metastatic foci of small bowel NETs and in choosing blocks for Ki67 staining in multifocal lesions. ConclusionThere existed scenarios wherein practice patterns varied despite recommendations in the literature, and there were also scenarios lacking clear guidelines wherein pathologists used varying judgement. This survey highlights current key grey areas in digestive system NEN evaluation, leading to variation in practice patterns.

Automated summary

This study aimed to assess the practice trends among pathologists worldwide when reporting digestive system neuroendocrine neoplasms. The results of an online survey showed variations in the diagnosis and management of these tumors. The survey also highlighted the need for clearer guidelines to reduce practice variations in the evaluation of neuroendocrine neoplasms.