Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2014 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classifications of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Sayfa
81–87
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: Although WHO 2000 seems to be a better classification to predict prognosis, since it is based on various parameters, such as depth of invasion, angiolymphatic invasion, and presence of metastasis, it was concluded that there was no difference between the WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classification, which is based on only the number of mitoses and Ki-67 proliferation index.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/Aims: Grading and staging are important in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors for directing treatment.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study, we evaluated the histopathological parameters of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and statistically analyzed the correlations of these parameters between the World Health Organization (WHO) 2000 and 2010 classifications.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: Although WHO 2000 seems to be a better classification to predict prognosis, since it is based on various parameters, such as depth of invasion, angiolymphatic invasion, and presence of metastasis, it was concluded that there was no difference between the WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classification, which is based on only the number of mitoses and Ki-67 proliferation index.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2000 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background/Aims: Grading and staging are important in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors for directing treatment. In this study, we evaluated the histopathological parameters of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and statistically analyzed the correlations of these parameters between the World Health Organization (WHO) 2000 and 2010 classifications. Materials and Methods: A total of 77 cases diagnosed as neuroendocrine tumors were included in the study. Cases were classified according to the WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classification systems, and the differences and correlations between the two systems were discussed. Results: Among the 50 cases that were diagnosed as well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor according to WHO 2000, 45 were found to be Grade 1 and 5 were found to be Grade 2 according to the WHO 2010 classification. Among the 8 cases with well-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma according to WHO 2000; 5 and 3 were Grade 1 and Grade 2, respectively, according to the WHO 2010 classification. All of the 19 cases with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma according to WHO 2000 were found to be Grade 3 according to the WHO 2010 classification. No differences were found between the classifications in the poorly differentiated group with a full correlation between the two classifications. Conclusion: Although WHO 2000 seems to be a better classification to predict prognosis, since it is based on various parameters, such as depth of invasion, angiolymphatic invasion, and presence of metastasis, it was concluded that there was no difference between the WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classification, which is based on only the number of mitoses and Ki-67 proliferation index.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KARAKUŞ, E., HELVACI, A., EKİNCİ, Ö., DURSUN, A. (2014). Comparison of WHO 2000 and WHO 2010 classifications of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1, 81–87. https://ajindex.com/articles/409520

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (5)

  1. Schott M, Klöppel G, Raffel A, Saleh A, Knoefel WT, Scherbaum WA. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108: 305-12.
  2. Rindi G, Bordi C, La Rosa S, Solcia E, Delle Fave G; Gruppo Italiano Patologi Apparato Digerente (GIPAD); Società Italiana di Anato- mia Patologica eCitopatologia Diagnostica/International Acade- my of Pathology, Italian division (SIAPEC/IAP). Gastroenteropan- creatic (neuro)endocrine neoplasms: the histology report. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 4: 356-60. [CrossRef] Schnirer II, Yao JC, Ajani JA. Carcinoid-a comprehensive review. Acta Oncol 2003; 42: 672-92. [CrossRef] Demirkan BH, Eriksson B. Systemic treatment of neuroendocrine tumors with hepatic metastases. Turk J Gastroenterol 2012; 23: 427-37.
  3. Hörsch D, Bert T, Schrader J, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine neo- plasms. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 2012; 58: 401-26.
  4. Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Coppola D, Lloyd RV, Suster S. The patho- logic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: a review of no- menclature, grading, and staging systems. Pancreas 2010; 39: 707-12. [CrossRef] Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Adsay NV, et al. Pathology reporting of neuroendocrine tumors: application of the delphic consensus process to the development of a minimum pathology data set. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 300-13. [CrossRef] Bosman F, Carneiro F, Hruban R, Theise N, eds (2010) WHO Clas- sification of Tumours of the Digestive System. Lyon, France 2010; 13-14.
  5. Volante M, Righi L, Berruti A, Rindi G, Papotti M.The pathological diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors: common questions and tentative answers. Virchows Arch 2011; 458: 393-402. [CrossRef] Bajetta E, Catena L, Procopio G, et al. Is the new WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumours useful for selecting an appropriate treatment? Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1374-80. [CrossRef] Klöppel G. Classification and pathology of gastroenteropancreatic neu- roendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer 2011; 1: 1-16. [CrossRef] Pape UF, Jann H, Müller-Nordhorn J, et al. Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer 2008; 113: 256-65. [CrossRef] Rindi G, Kloppel G, Alhman H, et al. TNM staging of foregut (neu- ro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 2006; 449: 395-401. [CrossRef] Rindi G, Kloppel G, Couvelard A, et al. TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows A