When analyzing tumors by histopathology, endocrine pathologists have traditionally been restricted to a few key immunohistochemical markers related to secretory vesicles in order to pinpoint neuroendocrine differentiation-most notably Chromogranin A (CGA) and Synaptophysin (SYP). Although proven of great clinical utility, these markers sometimes exhibit tissue-specific patterns depending on tumor origin, and non-neuroendocrine tumors might sometimes display focal expression. Moreover, CGA and SYP might be partially or totally absent in highly proliferative neuroendocrine carcinomas, making the diagnosis particularly challenging on small biopsies of metastatic lesions with unknown location of the primary tumor. The advent of second-generation neuroendocrine markers ISL LIM Homeobox 1 (ISL1), INSM Transcriptional Repressor 1 (INSM1) and Secretagogin (SECG) have expanded the pathology toolbox considerably, constituting markers that often retain expression even in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. As non-neuroendocrine tumors seldom express these antigens, the specificity of ISL1, INSM1 and SECG make them welcome additions to clinical practice. In this commentary, recent advances of this field as well as initial clinical experiences from a tertiary neuroendocrine center are discussed.

Second-Generation Neuroendocrine Immunohistochemical Markers: Reflections from Clinical Implementation.

An update on the development of concepts, diagnostic criteria, and challenging issues for neuroendocrine neoplasms across different digestive organs

Background: Colorectal mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (MANECs) are clinically highly aggressive neoplasms. MANECs are composed of variable adenocarcinoma components combined with morphologically distinct neuroendocrine carcinoma components, which are confirmed by synaptophysin immunohistochemistry, the gold standard marker of a neuroendocrine differentiation. However, the biological behavior of adenocarcinomas that express synaptophysin but do not show a typical neuroendocrine morphology remains unclear. Methods: We investigated synaptophysin expression in 1002 conventional colorectal adenocarcinomas and correlated the results with clinicopathological characteristics and patient survival and compared the survival characteristics of synaptophysin expression groups to MANECs. Results: Synaptophysin expression in conventional colorectal adenocarcinomas was associated with a shortened disease-free survival (p = 0.037), but not with overall survival or disease-specific survival (DSS) in univariate analyses and without any survival impact in multivariate analyses. Patients with “true” MANECs, on the other hand, showed a significantly shorter survival than all conventional adenocarcinomas with or without synaptophysin expression in uni- and multivariate analyses (e.g., multivariate DSS: p < 0.001, HR: 5.20). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that synaptophysin expression in conventional colorectal adenocarcinomas, in contrast to MANECs, is not associated with a significantly poorer clinical outcome when compared to adenocarcinomas without synaptophysin expression. Furthermore, our data suggest that conventional adenocarcinomas with a diffuse synaptophysin expression should not be classified as MANECs, also strongly arguing that synaptophysin testing should be reserved for carcinomas with an H&E morphology suggestive of a neuroendocrine differentiation.

Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Conventional Colorectal Adenocarcinomas: Incidental Finding or Prognostic Biomarker?

Primary hepatic neoplasms arising in cirrhotic livers can have a variable spectrum of neuroendocrine differentiation.

Simple Summary While most neuroendocrine neoplasms are indolent and slow-growing tumors, subsets of cases will spread beyond the tissue of origin. Given the rather slow progress, some lesions are incidentally discovered as metastatic deposits rather than primary masses. In these cases, a biopsy is often taken to allow the pathologist to identify the tumor type and possibly the primary tumor site via microscopic examination. In this review, the authors present a simplified guide on how to approach metastatic neuroendocrine tumors from a pathologist’s perspective. Abstract Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are diverse tumors arising in various anatomical locations and may therefore cause a variety of symptoms leading to their discovery. However, there are instances in which a NEN first presents clinically as a metastatic deposit, while the associated primary tumor is not easily identified using conventional imaging techniques because of small primary tumor sizes. In this setting (which is referred to as a “NEN of unknown primary”; NEN-UP), a tissue biopsy is often procured to allow the surgical pathologist to diagnose the metastatic lesion. If indeed a metastatic NEN-UP is found, several clues can be obtained from morphological assessment and immunohistochemical staining patterns that individually or in concert may help identify the primary tumor site. Herein, histological and auxiliary analyses of value in this context are discussed in order to aid the pathologist when encountering these lesions in clinical practice.

/pdf/metastatic-neuroendocrine-neoplasms-of-unknown-primary-clues-1r1rfx0q.pdf

Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of Unknown Primary: Clues from Pathology Workup

Primary gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (GI-NEC) cannot be distinguished morphologically from pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (P-NEC). This can present a significant diagnostic challenge in cases where site of origin cannot be readily determined. To identify immunohistochemical (IHC) markers that can be used to reliably distinguish between GI-NECs and P-NECs, we constructed 3-mm tissue microarrays, one containing 13 GI-NECs and one containing 20 P-NECs. IHC was performed on both microarrays using 21 stains: AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD56, INSM1, SSTR2A, CDX2, SATB2, TTF1, Napsin A, PR, GATA3, PAX8, ISL1, beta-catenin, AFP, SMAD4, Rb, and p53. For GI-NEC, the most strongly expressed marker was synaptophysin (mean H-score 248), while AE1/AE3 was the most strongly expressed in P-NEC (mean H-score 230), which was stronger than in GI-NEC (p = 0.011). Other markers that were stronger overall in P-NEC than in GI-NEC included CK7 (p < 0.0001) and TTF1 (p < 0.0001). Markers that were stronger overall in GI-NEC than in P-NEC included SSTR2A (p = 0.0021), SATB2 (p = 0.018), CDX2 (p = 0.019), and beta-catenin (nuclear; p = 0.029). SMAD4, Rb, and p53 showed similar rates of abnormal protein expression. Based on these results, a stepwise algorithmic approach utilizing CK7, TTF1, beta-catenin, CDX2, and SSTR2A had a 91% overall accuracy in distinguishing these GI-NEC from P-NEC. This was tested on a second cohort of 10 metastatic GI-NEC and 10 metastatic P-NEC, with an accuracy in this cohort of 85% and an overall accuracy of 89% for the 53 cases tested. Our algorithm reasonably discriminates GI-NEC from P-NEC using currently available IHC stains.

An algorithmic approach utilizing CK7, TTF1, beta-catenin, CDX2, and SSTR2A can help differentiate between gastrointestinal and pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas.

Sanhong Yu

Papers

An algorithmic approach utilizing CK7, TTF1, beta-catenin, CDX2, and SSTR2A can help differentiate between gastrointestinal and pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas.