Search

Low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin (LGNECS) was proposed in 2017 as a new primary cutaneous neoplasm with neuroendocrine differentiation; however, it is not yet well known due to its rarity. Herein, we perform a detailed clinicopathologic analysis of 13 cases as well as panel DNA sequencing in three cases. The study included 12 males and 1 female with a median age of 71 (43-85) years. All lesions occurred on the ventral trunk. The mean tumor size was 2.2 (0.8-11.0) cm. The histopathology resembled that of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in other organs, but intraepidermal pagetoid spreading was seen in 8 (61.5%) cases and stromal mucin deposits in 4 (30.8%). Immunoreactivity for CK7, CK19, EMA, BerEP4, CEA, chromogranin A, synaptophysin, INSM1, GCDFP15, GATA3, ER, and bcl-2 were present in varying degrees in all tested cases. PTEN c.165-1G>A splice site mutation was detected by panel sequencing in one case, and GATA3 P409fs*99 and SETD2 R1708fs*4 in another case. Lymph node metastasis was seen significantly in cases with tumor size >2.0 cm [8/8 (100%) vs. 1/5 (20%)]. All three cases with size >3.0 cm were in unresectable advanced-stage [3/3 (100%) vs. 1/10 (10%)], and two of the three patients succumbed to the disease. The two cases of death revealed mild nuclear atypia (mitosis: 1/10 HPFs) and moderate nuclear atypia (2/10 HPFs). Thus, tumor size would be a better prognostic factor than nuclear atypia, mitotic count, and Ki67 index, unlike in NETs. These clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features would represent the characteristics as skin adnexal tumors with apocrine/eccrine differentiation rather than NETs; therefore, we rename it as sweat-gland carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (SCAND)., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology.)

Literature on non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas is limited. We analyzed 47 resected non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas. Histologically, 78% were tubular-type adenocarcinomas mostly gastro-pancreatobiliary type and only 19% pure intestinal. Immunohistochemistry (n=38) revealed commonness of 'gastro-pancreatobiliary markers' (CK7 55, MUC1 50, MUC5AC 50, and MUC6 34%), whereas 'intestinal markers' were relatively less common (MUC2 36, CK20 42, and CDX2 44%). Squamous and mucinous differentiation were rare (in five each); previously, unrecognized adenocarcinoma patterns were noted (three microcystic/vacuolated, two cribriform, one of comedo-like, oncocytic papillary, and goblet-cell-carcinoid-like). An adenoma component common in ampullary-duodenal cancers was noted in only about a third. Most had plaque-like or ulcerating growth. Mismatch repair protein alterations were detected in 13% (all with plaque-like growth and pushing-border infiltration). When compared with ampullary (n=355) and pancreatic ductal (n=227) carcinomas, non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas had intermediary pathologic features with mean invasive size of 2.9 cm (vs 1.9, and 3.3) and 59% nodal metastasis (vs 45, and 77%). Its survival (3-, 5-year rates of 57 and 57%) was similar to that of ampullary-duodenal carcinomas (59 and 52%; P=0.78), but was significantly better than the ampullary ductal (41 and 29%, P<0.001) and pancreatic (28 and 18%, P<0.001) carcinomas. In conclusion, non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas are more histologically heterogeneous than previously appreciated. Their morphologic versatility (commonly showing gastro-pancreatobiliary lineage and hitherto unrecognized patterns), frequent plaque-like growth minus an adenoma component, and frequent expression of gastro-pancreatobiliary markers suggest that many non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas may arise from Brunner glands or gastric metaplasia or heterotopic pancreatobiliary epithelium. The clinical behavior of non-ampullary-duodenal carcinoma is closer to that of ampullary-duodenal subset of ampullary carcinomas, but is significantly better than that of ampullary ductal and pancreatic cancers. The frequency of mismatch repair protein alterations suggest that routine testing should be considered, especially in the non-ampullary-duodenal carcinomas with plaque-like growth and pushing-border infiltration.

Histologic classification of ampullary carcinomas as intestinal versus pancreatobiliary is rapidly becoming a part of management algorithms, with immunohistochemical classification schemes also being devised using this classification scheme as their basis. However, data on the reproducibility and prognostic relevance of this classification system are limited. In this study, five observers independently evaluated 232 resected ampullary carcinomas with invasive component >3 mm. Overall interobserver agreement was 'fair' (κ 0.39; P<0.001) with complete agreement in 23%. Using agreement by 3/5 observers as 'consensus' 40% of cases were classified as 'mixed' pancreatobiliary and intestinal. When observers were asked to provide a final diagnosis based on the predominant pattern in cases initially classified as mixed, there was 'moderate' agreement (κ 0.44; P<0.0001) with 5/5 agreeing in 35%. Cases classified as pancreatobiliary by consensus (including those with pure-pancreatobiliary or mixed-predominantly pancreatobiliary features) had shorter overall (median 41 months) and 5-year survival (38%) than those classified as pure-intestinal/mixed-predominantly intestinal (80 months and 57%, respectively; P=0.026); however, on multivariate analysis this was not independent of established prognostic parameters. Interestingly, when compared with 476 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, the pancreatobiliary-type ampullary carcinomas had better survival (16 versus 41 months, P<0.001), even when matched by size and node status. In conclusion, presumably because of the various cell types comprising the region, ampullary carcinomas frequently show mixed phenotypes and intratumoral heterogeneity, which should be considered when devising management protocols. Caution is especially warranted when applying this histologic classification to biopsies and tissue microarrays. While ampullary carcinomas with more pancreatobiliary morphology have a worse prognosis than intestinal ones this does not appear to be an independent prognostic factor. However, pancreatobiliary-type ampullary carcinomas have a much better prognosis than their pancreatic counterparts.

Distal common bile duct carcinoma is a poorly characterized entity for reasons such as variable terminology and difficulty in determining site of origin of intrapancreatic lesions. We compared clinicopathologic features of pancreatobiliary-type adenocarcinomas within the pancreas, but arising from the distal common bile duct, with those of pancreatic and ampullary origin. Upon careful review of 1017 pancreatoduodenectomy specimens with primary adenocarcinoma, 52 (5%) qualified as intrapancreatic distal common bile duct carcinoma. Five associated with an intraductal papillary neoplasm were excluded; the remaining 47 were compared to 109 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas and 133 ampullary carcinomas. Distal common bile duct carcinoma patients had a younger median age (58 years) than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients (65 years) and ampullary carcinoma patients (68 years). Distal common bile duct carcinoma was intermediate between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and ampullary carcinoma with regard to tumor size and rates of node metastases and margin positivity. Median survival was better than for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P=0.0010) but worse than for ampullary carcinoma (P=0.0006). Distal common bile duct carcinoma often formed an even band around the common bile duct and commonly showed intraglandular neutrophil-rich debris and a small tubular pattern. Poor prognostic indicators included node metastasis (P=0.0010), lymphovascular invasion (P=0.0299), and margin positivity (P=0.0069). Categorizing the tumors based on size also had prognostic relevance (P=0.0096), unlike categorization based on anatomic structures invaded. Primary distal common bile duct carcinoma is seen in younger patients than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or ampullary carcinoma. Its prognosis is significantly better than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and worse than ampullary carcinoma, at least partly because of differences in clinical presentation. Use of size-based criteria for staging appears to improve its prognostic relevance. Invasive pancreatobiliary-type distal common bile duct carcinomas are uncommon in the West and have substantial clinicopathologic differences from carcinomas arising from the pancreas and ampulla.

Ki67 index is now an essential part of classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. However, its adaptation into daily practice has been fraught with challenges related to counting methodology. In this study, three reviewers used four counting methodologies to calculate Ki67 index in 68 well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: (1) 'eye-ball' estimation, which has been advocated as reliable and is widely used; (2) automated counting by image analyzer; (3) manual eye-counting (eye under a microscope without a grid); and (4) manual count of camera-captured/printed image. Pearson's correlation (R) was used to measure pair-wise correlation among three reviewers using all four methodologies. Average level of agreement was calculated using mean of R values. The results showed that: (1) 'eye-balling' was least expensive and fastest (average time <1 min) but had poor reliability and reproducibility. (2) Automated count was the most expensive and least practical with major impact on turnaround time (limited by machine and personnel accessibility), and, more importantly, had inaccuracies in overcounting unwanted material. (3) Manual eye count had no additional cost, averaged 6 min, but proved impractical and poorly reproducible. (4) Camera-captured/printed image was most reliable, had highest reproducibility, but took longer than 'eye-balling'. In conclusion, based on its comparatively low cost/benefit ratio and reproducibility, camera-captured/printed image appears to be the most practical for calculating Ki67 index. Although automated counting is generally advertised as the gold standard for index calculation, in this study it was not as accurate or cost-effective as camera-captured/printed image and was highly operator-dependent. 'Eye-balling' produces highly inaccurate and unreliable results, and is not recommended for routine use.