• Users Online:441
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 372-380

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification


1 Division of Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and EUS, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute IRCCS, Milano, Italy
2 Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute IRCCS, Milano, Italy
3 Department of Pathology, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute IRCCS, Milano, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Matteo Tacelli
Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and EUS Division, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute IRCCS, Milano
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00261

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) mostly depend on tumor stage and grade, determined by Ki-67 labeling index. EUS-FNA is considered the gold-standard technique to obtain it. The aims of our study were to establish diagnostic accuracy of preoperative EUS-FNA Ki-67 evaluation considering final pathological assessment on surgical specimen as gold standard and to investigate the possible impact on prognosis of misclassification. Methods: This is a retrospective study from a prospectively collected database. EUS-FNA grading (eG) and surgical one (sG) measured according to Ki-67 proliferative index values, according to 2017 WHO classification, were compared. eG-sG correlation was evaluated by Spearman index. Logistic regression investigated factors associated with misclassification. Prognostic difference in terms of progression-free survival was evaluated by Kaplan Meier method. Results: One hundred and twelve PanNENs patients enrolled. In 13.4% of patients (15/112) EUS-FNA “undergraded” patients (eG1 vs. sG2), while in 12.5% (n = 14) it “overgraded” PanNENs (eG2 to sG1). No misclassifications in G3 patients. In patients with tumors <20 mm (n = 44), 2 (4.5%) eG1 and 10 (22.7%) eG2 were finally classified respectively as G2 and G1 at surgical histology. No factors, as i.e. the lesions' size or their morphological aspect, were associated with misclassification. In overgraded PanNENs, no progression occurred, while in patients correctly classified/undergraded the progression rate was 14.3%. Conclusions: This is the largest cohort of surgical PanNENs with preoperative EUS-FNA grading evaluation. Despite an acceptable eG-sG correlation, about 25% of patients are misclassified. Clinical impact of misclassification should be carefully considered especially in small tumors undergoing observation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed320    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal