Search

There is no standardized treatment for grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (G3 NETs). We aimed to describe the treatments received in patients with advanced G3 NETs and compare their efficacy. Patients with advanced digestive G3 NETs treated between 2010 and 2018 in seven expert centers were retrospectively studied. Pathological samples were centrally reviewed, and radiological data were locally reviewed. We analyzed RECIST-defined objective response (OR), tumor growth rate (TGR) and progression-free survival (PFS) obtained with first- (L1) or second-line (L2) treatments. We included 74 patients with advanced G3 NETs, mostly from the duodenal or pancreatic origin (71.6%), with median Ki-67 of 30%. The 126 treatments (L1 = 74; L2 = 52) included alkylating-based (n = 32), etoposide-platinum (n = 22) or adenocarcinoma-like (n = 20) chemotherapy, somatostatin analogs (n = 21), targeted therapies (n = 22) and liver-directed therapies (n = 7). Alkylating-based chemotherapy achieved the highest OR rate (37.9%) compared to other treatments (multivariable OR 4.22, 95% CI (1.5-12.2); P = 0.008). Adenocarcinoma-like and alkylating-based chemotherapies showed the highest reductions in 3-month TGR (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). The longest median PFS was obtained with adenocarcinoma-like chemotherapy (16.5 months (9.0-24.0)) and targeted therapies (12.0 months (8.2-15.8)), while the shortest PFS was observed with somatostatin analogs (6.2 months (3.8-8.5)) and etoposide-platinum chemotherapy (7.2 months (5.2-9.1)). Etoposide-platinum CT achieved shorter PFS than adenocarcinoma-like (multivariable HR 3.69 (1.61-8.44), P = 0.002) and alkylating-based chemotherapies (multivariable HR 1.95 (1.01-3.78), P = 0.049). Overall, adenocarcinoma-like and alkylating-based chemotherapies may be the most effective treatments for patients with advanced G3 NETs regarding OR and PFS. Etoposide-platinum chemotherapy has poor efficacy in this setting.

Clinical significance of the pT4 category in colon cancer is increasing with several therapeutic implications. The aim of this study was to evaluate variability in diagnosing pT4a colon cancer. Twelve pathologists classified 66 preselected scanned Hematoxylin/Eosin-stained slides with tumor cells at a distance of 25-1500 μm (n = 22), 0-25 μm (n = 22), or on (n = 22) the peritoneal surface. Inter- and intraobserver variability were calculated using Kappa statistics. For interlaboratory variability, pathology reports of pT3 and pT4a colon cancer were extracted from the Dutch Pathology Registry between 2012 and 2015. The proportion of pT4a (pT4a/(pT3+pT4a)) was compared between 33 laboratories. Potential risk of understaging was assessed by determining the average number of blocks taken from pT3 and pT4a N0-2M0 tumors with metachronous peritoneal metastasis. Interobserver variability among 12 pathologists was 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.60; moderate agreement). Intraobserver variability (8 pathologists) was 0.71 (substantial agreement). A total of 7745 reports with pT3 or pT4aN0-2M0 colon cancer from 33 laboratories were included for interlaboratory analysis. Median percentage of pT4a was 15.5% (range 3.2-24.6%). After adjustment for case mix, 8 labs diagnosed pT4a significantly less or more frequently than the median lab. Metachronous peritoneal metastases were histologically verified in 170 of 6629 pT3 and in 129 of 1116 pT4a tumors, with a mean number of blocks of 4.03(SD 1.51) and 4.78 (SD 1.76) taken from the primary tumors, respectively (p < 0.001). A substantial variability in diagnosing pT4a colon cancer exists, both at pathologist and laboratory level. Diagnosis of pT4a stage appears to be challenging and there is a need for standardizing assessment of this pathological entity.

The vermiform appendix is the primary site of several distinctive benign and malignant neoplasms. Some can produce the clinical syndrome of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). A consensus on their terminology was reached by an international panel of pathologists and clinicians working under the auspices of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI), and this review discusses the application of the PSOGI classification to routine reporting. We discuss diagnosis and differential diagnosis together with implications for patient management, covering low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, serrated polyps, adenomas and adenocarcinomas. We do not cover goblet cell tumours or neuroendocrine neoplasms in this paper., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)