Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 5

Evaluation of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms with a new classification system and literature review

Pages
532–542
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These classification systems have facilitated the compatibility and communication of clinicians and pathologists and have guided clinicians on treatment methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms constitute a diagnostic spectrum ranging from adenoma to mucinous adenocarcinoma.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using the 2016 Modified Delphi Consensus Protocol (Delphi) and the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 19 cases present-ed from June 2011 to December 2016 were evaluated and diagnosed with appendiceal mucinous neoplasia.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These classification systems have facilitated the compatibility and communication of clinicians and pathologists and have guided clinicians on treatment methods.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms constitute a diagnostic spectrum ranging from adenoma to mucinous adenocarcinoma. To date, many classification systems have been proposed to reflect the histomorphological diversity of neoplasms in this range and their clinical correspondence, and also to form a common terminology between the pathologist and clinicians. The aim of this review is to provide an updated perspective on the pathological features of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Using the 2016 Modified Delphi Consensus Protocol (Delphi) and the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 19 cases present-ed from June 2011 to December 2016 were evaluated and diagnosed with appendiceal mucinous neoplasia. According to the Delphi, non-carcinoid epithelial tumours of the appendix were categorized in eight histomorphological architectural groups. These groups are adenoma, serrated polyp, low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, mucinous adeno-carcinoma, poorly-differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet-ring, signet-ring cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The most common symptom was right lower quadrant pain. The median age of these cases was 60±15 years. There was a preponderance of females (F/M: 15/4). In our re-evaluation, six cases were diagnosed as serrated polyp. There were 11 cases in the LAMN group and two cases in the mucinous adenocarcinoma group. Using the Delphi and the AJCC manual, there were many changes in the classification, evaluation and treatment of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. These classification systems have facilitated the compatibility and communication of clinicians and pathologists and have guided clinicians on treatment methods.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDOĞAR, Ö., KIMILOĞLU, E., KOMUT, N., CİN, M., BEKTAŞ, S., GÖNÜLLÜ, D., İLGÜN, A. S., ERDOĞAN, N. (2018). Evaluation of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms with a new classification system and literature review. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 5, 532–542. https://ajindex.com/articles/410067

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Fournier K, Rafeeq S, Taggart M, et al. Low Grade Appendiceal Mu- cinous Neoplasm of Uncertain Malignant Potential (LAMN-UMP): Prognostic Factors and Implications for Treatment and Follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 1: 187-93. [CrossRef] Tirumani SH, Fraser-Hill, Auer R, et al. Mucinous Neoplasms of the Appendix: A Current Comprehensive Clinicopathologic and Imaging Review. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13: 14-25. [CrossRef] Odze RD, Goldblum JR. Surgical Pathology of the GI Tract, Liver, Bili- ary Tractand Pancreas. Philadelphia. Elsevier. 3th ed. 2015.p.779-802.
  2. Connor SJ, Hanna GB, Frizella FA. Appendicial Tumors: Retrospec- tive Clinicopathologic Analysis of Appendicial Tumors from 7970 Appendectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 75-80. [CrossRef] Woodruff R, McDonald JR. Benign and malignant cystic tumors of the appendix. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1940; 71: 750-5.
  3. Pai RK, Beck AH, Norton JA, Longacre TA. Appendiceal Mucinous Neo- plasms Clinicopathologic Study of 116 Cases With Analysis of Factors Predicting Recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2009; 33: 1425-39. [CrossRef] Misdraji J, Yantiss RK,Graeme-Cook FM, et al. Appendiceal muci- nous neoplasms: a clinicopathologic analysis of 107 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 1089-103. [CrossRef] Carr NJ, Cecil TD, Mohamed F, et al. Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International A Consensus for Classification and Pathologic Reporting of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Associated Appendiceal Neoplasia: The Results of the Peritoneal Surface OncologyGroup In- ternational (PSOGI) Modified Delphi ProcessAm J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 14-26.
  4. Carr NJ, Sobin LH. Adenocarcinoma of the appendix, In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al. (eds) World Health Organisation Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. IARC Press:
  5. Lyon, France; 2010; 122-5.
  6. Carr NJ, McCarthy WF, Sobin LH, et al. Epithelial Noncarcinoid Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions of the Appendix. Cancer 1995; 75: 757-68. [CrossRef] Overman MJ, Asare EA, Compton CC, et al. Appendix-Carcinoma. Amin MB, editor. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th edition. Chicago; 2017.p.237-81.
  7. Asenov Y, Korukov B, Penkov N, et al. Appendiceal mucocele - Case Report and Review of the Literature. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2015; 110: 565-9.
  8. Arnason T, Kamionek M, Yang M, et al. Significance of proximal margin involvement in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139: 518-21. [CrossRef] Shin R, Chai YJ, Park JW, et al. Ultimate Clinical Outcomes of Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm of Uncer