What is new in the pathology of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?

The diagnostics of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNEN) have changed in recent years especially concerning the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, TNM staging and grading. Furthermore, some new prognostic and predictive immunohistochemical markers have been introduced. Most progress, however, has been made in the molecular pathogenesis of these neoplasms. Using next generation sequencing techniques, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, hypoxia and epigenetic changes were identified as key players in tumorigenesis. In this article the most important developments of morphological as well as immunohistochemical diagnostics together with the molecular background of PanNEN are summarized.

Pathology: Classification and Immunoprofile

The classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has been evolving steadily over the last decades. Important prognostic factors of NENs are their proliferative activity and presence/absence of necrosis. These factors are reported in NENs of all body sites; however, the terminology as well as the exact rules of classification differ according to the location of the primary tumor. Only in gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) NENs a formal grading is performed. This grading is based on proliferation assessed by the mitotic count and/or Ki-67 proliferation index. In the lung, NEN grading is an intrinsic part of the tumor designation with typical carcinoids corresponding to neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 and atypical carcinoids to NET G2; however, the presence or absence of necrotic foci is as important as proliferation for the differentiation between typical and atypical carcinoids. Immunohistochemical markers can be used to demonstrate neuroendocrine differentiation. Synaptophysin and chromogranin A are, to date, the most reliable and most commonly used for this purpose. Beyond this, other markers can be helpful, for example in the situation of a NET metastasis of unknown primary, where a hormonal profile or a panel of transcription factors can give hints to the primary site. Many immunohistochemical markers have been shown to correlate with prognosis but are not used in clinical practice, for example cytokeratin 19 and KIT expression in pancreatic NETs. There is no predictive biomarker in use, with the exception of somatostatin receptor (SSTR) 2 expression for predicting the amenability of a tumor to in vivo SSTR targeting for imaging or therapy.

Recommendations from GEC ESTRO Breast Cancer Working Group (I): Target definition and target delineation for accelerated or boost Partial Breast Irradiation using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy after breast conserving closed cavity surgery

OBJECTIVE The aim was to develop a delineation guideline for target definition for APBI or boost by consensus of the Breast Working Group of GEC-ESTRO. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Appropriate delineation of CTV (PTV) with low inter- and intra-observer variability in clinical practice is complex and needs various steps as: (1) Detailed knowledge of primary surgical procedure, of all details of pathology, as well as of preoperative imaging. (2) Definition of tumour localization before breast conserving surgery inside the breast and translation of this information in the postoperative CT imaging data set. (3) Calculation of the size of total safety margins. The size should be at least 2 cm. (4) Definition of the target. (5) Delineation of the target according to defined rules. CONCLUSION Providing guidelines based on the consensus of a group of experts should make it possible to achieve a reproducible and consistent definition of CTV (PTV) for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) or boost irradiation after breast conserving closed cavity surgery, and helps to define it after selected cases of oncoplastic surgery.