Search

Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a very rare tumor that has various morphologic features, which may give rise to diagnostic difficulties. Because of its rarity, many clinicopathologic characteristics remain to be further elucidated, and prognostic factors are yet to be well established. With the aim of better characterizing this carcinoma and searching for prognostic indicators, we collected 62 ACCs and investigated the following parameters: site, size, local infiltration, node and distant metastases, architectural pattern, nuclear atypia, presence of necrosis, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, proliferation, BCL10, trypsin, carboxyl ester lipase, amylase, lipase, PDX1, cytokeratin 19 (CK19), CK7, p53, and β-catenin expression. Twelve cases showing >30% of endocrine cells were reclassified as mixed acinar-neuroendocrine carcinomas, whereas 1 tumor was reclassified as a mixed ductal-acinar carcinoma and was excluded from the statistical prognostic evaluations. BCL10 and trypsin were the most reliable immunohistochemical markers, whereas amylase and lipase were not. Surgery was statistically correlated with a better prognosis (P=0.0008). Among resected tumors there was no difference in survival between ACCs and mixed acinar-neuroendocrine carcinomas, and factors that significantly correlated with poor prognosis were size >6.5 cm (P=0.004), lymph node (P=0.0039) and distant (P=0.008) metastases, and UICC stage (P=0.009). Stage was the only independent prognostic factor at multivariable analysis, and the best prognostic discrimination was observed on grouping together stages I and II and grouping together stages III and IV, suggesting a simplification of the UICC staging for such cancers. In addition, vascular and perineural invasion and CK19 and p53 expression showed a trend for poor prognosis, not reaching statistical significance.

Background: Both the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) and the International Union for Cancer Control/American Joint Cancer Committee/World Health Organization (UICC/AJCC/WHO) have proposed TNM staging systems for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. This study aims to identify the most accurate and useful TNM system for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms., Methods: The study included 1072 patients who had undergone previous surgery for their cancer and for which at least 2 years of follow-up from 1990 to 2007 was available. Data on 28 variables were collected, and the performance of the two TNM staging systems was compared by Cox regression analysis and multivariable analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Differences in distribution of sex and age were observed for the ENETS TNM staging system. At Cox regression analysis, only the ENETS TNM staging system perfectly allocated patients into four statistically significantly different and equally populated risk groups (with stage I as the reference; stage II hazard ratio [HR] of death = 16.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.14 to 123, P = .007; stage III HR of death = 51.81, 95% CI = 7.11 to 377, P < .001; and stage IV HR of death = 160, 95% CI = 22.30 to 1143, P < .001). However, the UICC/AJCC/WHO 2010 TNM staging system compressed the disease into three differently populated classes, with most patients in stage I, and with the patients being equally distributed into stages II-III (statistically similar) and IV (with stage I as the reference; stage II HR of death = 9.57, 95% CI = 4.62 to 19.88, P < .001; stage III HR of death = 9.32, 95% CI = 3.69 to 23.53, P = .94; and stage IV HR of death = 30.84, 95% CI = 15.62 to 60.87, P < .001). Multivariable modeling indicated curative surgery, TNM staging, and grading were effective predictors of death, and grading was the second most effective independent predictor of survival in the absence of staging information. Though both TNM staging systems were independent predictors of survival, the UICC/AJCC/WHO 2010 TNM stages showed very large 95% confidence intervals for each stage, indicating an inaccurate predictive ability., Conclusion: Our data suggest the ENETS TNM staging system is superior to the UICC/AJCC/WHO 2010 TNM staging system and supports its use in clinical practice.