Other search tools

About this data

The publication data currently available has been vetted by Vanderbilt faculty, staff, administrators and trainees. The data itself is retrieved directly from NCBI's PubMed and is automatically updated on a weekly basis to ensure accuracy and completeness.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.

Results: 1 to 10 of 31

Publication Record

Connections

SATB2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry is a sensitive and specific marker of appendiceal and rectosigmoid well differentiated neuroendocrine tumours.
Hoskoppal D, Epstein JI, Gown AM, Arnold Egloff SA, Gordetsky JB, Shi CJ, Giannico GA
(2020) Histopathology 76: 550-559
MeSH Terms: Appendiceal Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Tumor, Colorectal Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Matrix Attachment Region Binding Proteins, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Retrospective Studies, Transcription Factors
Show Abstract · Added March 30, 2020
AIMS - Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NNs) range from well to poorly differentiated and indolent to highly aggressive. The site of origin in metastatic NNs has therapeutic and prognostic implications. SATB2 is a transcriptional regulator involved in osteoblastic and neuronal differentiation and is a sensitive and specific marker of colorectal epithelium. This study aimed to evaluate the expression of SATB2 in NNs from various primary sites and its utility as a marker in determining the site of origin of these neoplasms.
METHODS AND RESULTS - SATB2 immunohistochemistry was performed on 266 NNs, including lung small cell carcinomas (n = 39) and carcinoids (n = 30), bladder (n = 21) and prostate (n = 31) small cell carcinomas, and gastrointestinal (GI)/pancreatic NNs of various primary sites (n = 145) consisting of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (WDNET)s (n = 124) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (PDNEC)s (n = 21). SATB2 was expressed in prostatic (10 of 31, 32%) and bladder (eight of 21, 38%) small cell carcinomas, lung carcinoid tumours (one of 30, 3%), and lung small cell carcinomas (eight of 39, 21%). Among primary GI NNs, SATB2 was expressed in 37 of 124 (30%) WDNETs and four of 21 (19%) PDNECs. Of the former, 15 of 15 (100%) rectal/rectosigmoid and 22 of 22 (100%) appendiceal neoplasms expressed SATB2. Using receiver operator characteristic analysis, SATB2 was a sensitive and specific marker for rectal (100.0%, 80.0%) and appendiceal (100.0%, 84.5%) WDNETs, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS - In summary, SATB2 is a sensitive and specific marker for rectal/rectosigmoid and appendiceal WDNETs, and may represent a useful diagnostic tool when these sites of origin are considered in the differential diagnosis.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
11 MeSH Terms
Should Ki67 immunohistochemistry be performed on all lesions in multifocal small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours?
Numbere N, Huber AR, Shi C, Cates JMM, Gonzalez RS
(2019) Histopathology 74: 424-429
MeSH Terms: Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Biomarkers, Tumor, Disease-Free Survival, Female, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Intestinal Neoplasms, Intestine, Small, Ki-67 Antigen, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Grading, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Proportional Hazards Models
Show Abstract · Added November 1, 2018
AIMS - Well-differentiated small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours (SI-NETs) are often multifocal, and this has been suggested to impart worse disease-free survival. Practice guidelines have not been established for World Health Organisation (WHO) grading of multiple primary lesions.
METHODS AND RESULTS - We identified 68 patients with ileal/jejunal SI-NET for a combined total of 207 primary lesions. Each case was evaluated for patient age and sex; size of all tumours; presence of lymph node metastases, mesenteric tumour deposits or distant metastases; and disease-specific outcome. Ki67 staining was performed on all 207 primary lesions. The relationship between multifocality and clinicopathological factors was compared using Fisher's exact test. Outcome was tested using Cox proportional hazard regression. Forty-two patients had unifocal disease, and 26 had multifocal disease (median five lesions, range = 2-32). Most tumours were WHO grade 1 (201 of 207, 97%). Of the five patients with grades 2/3 tumours, three patients had unifocal disease, one patient had two subcentimetre grade 2 lesions (including the largest) and eight subcentimetre grade 1 lesions, and one patient had one 1.6-cm grade 3 lesion and one subcentimetre grade 1 lesion. There was a positive correlation between tumour size and Ki67 index (coefficient 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.52, P = 0.017). There was no significant association between multifocality and nodal metastases, mesenteric tumour deposits, distant metastases or disease-specific survival.
CONCLUSIONS - In patients with multifocal SI-NET, unless a particular lesion has a high mitotic rate, only staining the largest lesion for Ki67 should serve to grade almost all cases accurately. Multifocality does not appear to significantly impact patient survival.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
16 MeSH Terms
Number, not size, of mesenteric tumor deposits affects prognosis of small intestinal well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors.
Gonzalez RS, Cates JMM, Shi C
(2018) Mod Pathol 31: 1560-1566
MeSH Terms: Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Intestinal Neoplasms, Intestine, Small, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Mesentery, Middle Aged, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Peritoneal Neoplasms, Prognosis, Young Adult
Show Abstract · Added November 1, 2018
Mesenteric tumor deposits are an adverse prognostic factor for small intestinal well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Per the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual (eighth edition), any mesenteric tumor deposit larger than 2 cm signifies pN2 disease. This criterion has not been critically evaluated as a prognostic factor for small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors, nor have multifocality or histologic features of mesenteric tumor deposits. We evaluated 70 small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors with mesenteric tumor deposits for lesional contour, sclerosis, inflammation, calcification, entrapped blood vessels, and perineural invasion. Ki67 proliferative indices of the largest mesenteric tumor deposit from each case were calculated, and number of tumor deposits and size of the largest deposit were recorded. Associations between these factors (along with patient age, primary tumor Ki67 index, and AJCC stage) and development of liver metastases and overall survival were assessed. Median mesenteric tumor deposit size was 1.5 cm (range: 0.2-7.0 cm); median deposit number was 1 (range: 1-13). Primary and tumor deposit Ki67 indices within a given patient were discordant in 40% of cases but showed similar hazard ratios for disease-specific survival. Size of tumor deposits had no significant effect on prognosis, whether analyzed on a continuous scale or dichotomized using the recommended 2 cm cutoff. In contrast, increasing number of deposits was associated with poor prognosis, with multiple deposits conferring an 8.19-fold risk of disease-specific death compared to a single deposit (P = 0.049). Morphologic features of deposits had no prognostic impact. Size of mesenteric tumor deposits does not affect prognosis in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumor patients; instead, deposit multifocality is associated with shorter disease-specific survival and should be incorporated into future staging criteria.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
15 MeSH Terms
Hepatic micrometastases are associated with poor prognosis in patients with liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors of the digestive tract.
Gibson WE, Gonzalez RS, Cates JMM, Liu E, Shi C
(2018) Hum Pathol 79: 109-115
MeSH Terms: Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Hepatectomy, Humans, Intestinal Neoplasms, Intestine, Small, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Metastasectomy, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Micrometastasis, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
Show Abstract · Added November 1, 2018
Pathologic examination of hepatic metastasectomies from patients with metastatic small intestinal or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor frequently reveals micrometastases undetectable by radiologic or macroscopic gross examination. This finding raises the possibility that undetectable micrometastases remain in these patients after metastasectomy. Here we examined liver resections for micrometastases and assessed their impact on prognosis. Hepatic metastasectomies from 65 patients with neuroendocrine tumor of the small intestine (N = 43) or pancreas (N = 22) were reviewed for the presence of micrometastases, which were defined as microscopic tumor foci ≤1 mm in greatest dimension. Medical records were also reviewed for patient demographics, clinical history, and follow-up data. Micrometastasis was identified in 36 (55%) of 65 hepatic resection specimens. More hepatic micrometastases were seen in small intestinal cases than in pancreatic cases (29/43, 67%, versus 7/22, 32%; P < .01). They were typically present within portal tracts, sometimes with extension into the periportal region or sinusoidal spaces away from the portal tracts. Patients without hepatic micrometastases had fewer macrometastases or more R0 hepatic resections than those with micrometastases. The presence of hepatic micrometastases was associated with poor overall survival both before (hazard ratio [HR] 3.43; 95% CI 1.14-10.30; P = .03) and after accounting for confounding variables in stratified Cox regression (HR 4.82; 95% CI 1.0621.79; P = .04). In conclusion, hepatic micrometastases are common in patients with metastatic small intestinal or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and are independently associated with poor prognosis. These data suggest that surgical resection of hepatic metastases is likely not curative in these patients.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
20 MeSH Terms
Nomogram predicting the risk of recurrence after curative-intent resection of primary non-metastatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: An analysis of the U.S. Neuroendocrine Tumor Study Group.
Merath K, Bagante F, Beal EW, Lopez-Aguiar AG, Poultsides G, Makris E, Rocha F, Kanji Z, Weber S, Fisher A, Fields R, Krasnick BA, Idrees K, Smith PM, Cho C, Beems M, Schmidt CR, Dillhoff M, Maithel SK, Pawlik TM
(2018) J Surg Oncol 117: 868-878
MeSH Terms: Cohort Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gastrointestinal Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Nomograms, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Survival Rate
Show Abstract · Added April 10, 2018
BACKGROUND - The risk of recurrence after resection of non-metastatic gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET) is poorly defined. We developed/validated a nomogram to predict risk of recurrence after curative-intent resection.
METHODS - A training set to develop the nomogram and test set for validation were identified. The predictive ability of the nomogram was assessed using c-indices.
RESULTS - Among 1477 patients, 673 (46%) were included in the training set and 804 (54%) in y the test set. On multivariable analysis, Ki-67, tumor size, nodal status, and invasion of adjacent organs were independent predictors of DFS. The risk of death increased by 8% for each percentage increase in the Ki-67 index (HR 1.08, 95% CI, 1.05-1.10; P < 0.001). GEP-NET invading adjacent organs had a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.03-2.65; P = 0.038), similar to tumors ≥3 cm (HR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.11-2.51; P = 0.014). Patients with 1-3 positive nodes and patients with >3 positive nodes had a HR of 1.81 (95% CI, 1.12-2.87; P = 0.014) and 2.51 (95% CI, 1.50-4.24; P < 0.001), respectively. The nomogram demonstrated good ability to predict risk of recurrence (c-index: training set, 0.739; test set, 0.718).
CONCLUSION - The nomogram was able to predict the risk of recurrence and can be easily applied in the clinical setting.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
13 MeSH Terms
Frequent BRAF mutations suggest a novel oncogenic driver in colonic neuroendocrine carcinoma.
Idrees K, Padmanabhan C, Liu E, Guo Y, Gonzalez RS, Berlin J, Dahlman KB, Beauchamp RD, Shi C
(2018) J Surg Oncol 117: 284-289
MeSH Terms: Adult, Aged, Biomarkers, Tumor, Carcinogenesis, Case-Control Studies, Colonic Neoplasms, DNA Mutational Analysis, DNA, Neoplasm, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Prognosis, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
Show Abstract · Added March 14, 2018
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES - The World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 has classified GI neuroendocrine neoplasms into neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). The genetic underpinnings of NEC are poorly understood. The aim of the study was to perform genomic profiling of NEC to better characterize this aggressive disease.
METHODS - We identified nine patients with colonic NEC between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2013. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on tumor DNA from two patients with ≥80% tumor cellularity and matched normal tissue available. Focused BRAF mutational analysis was performed on an additional seven patients via sanger sequencing of BRAF exons 11 and 15.
RESULTS - We identified BRAF exon 15 mutations (c.A1781G: p.D594G and c.T1799A: p.V600E) by WES in two patients. Upon additional screening of seven colonic NECs for BRAF exon 11 and 15 mutations, we identified BRAF V600E mutations in two of seven specimens (29%). Overall, BRAF exon 15 mutations were present in four of nine colonic NECs.
CONCLUSION - Colonic NEC is a rare but aggressive tumor with high frequency (44%) of BRAF mutations. Further investigation is warranted to ascertain the incidence of BRAF mutations in a larger population as BRAF inhibition may be a potential avenue of targeted treatment for these patients.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
0 Communities
2 Members
0 Resources
17 MeSH Terms
Mesenteric Tumor Deposits in Midgut Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors Are a Stronger Indicator Than Lymph Node Metastasis for Liver Metastasis and Poor Prognosis.
Fata CR, Gonzalez RS, Liu E, Cates JM, Shi C
(2017) Am J Surg Pathol 41: 128-133
MeSH Terms: Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Disease-Free Survival, Female, Humans, Intestinal Neoplasms, Intestine, Small, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Liver Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Mesentery, Middle Aged, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Prognosis, Proportional Hazards Models, Young Adult
Show Abstract · Added November 1, 2018
Mesenteric tumor deposits (MTDs) are not included in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for midgut small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We examined the prognostic significance of MTDs associated with midgut NETs. Hematoxylin and eosin slides from 132 resected jejunal/ileal NETs were reviewed for AJCC tumor stage, lymph node (LN) metastasis, MTDs, and hepatic metastases. MTDs were defined as discrete irregular mesenteric tumor nodules discontinuous from the primary tumor. Clinical or pathologic evidence of metastases and survival data were abstracted from electronic medical records. The cohort included 72 male and 60 female patients with a median age of 60 years. LN metastasis, MTDs, and liver metastasis were present in 80%, 68%, and 58% of patients, respectively. Female sex and presence of MTDs were independent predictors of liver metastasis. The odds ratio for hepatic metastasis in the presence of MTDs was 16.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.66-59.73) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.20-3.26) for LN metastasis. Age, MTDs, and hepatic metastasis were associated with disease-specific survival (DSS) in univariate analysis. Primary tumor histologic grade, pT3/T4 stage, and LN metastasis were not associated with DSS. Multivariate analysis of liver metastasis-free survival stratified by tumor grade showed that MTDs were associated with adverse outcomes. The hazard ratio for MTDs was 4.58 (95% CI, 1.89-11.11), compared with 0.98 (95% CI, 0.47-2.05) for LN metastasis. MTDs, but not LN metastasis, in midgut NETs are a strong predictor for hepatic metastasis and are associated with poor DSS.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
MeSH Terms
Early onset pancreatic malignancies: Clinical characteristics and survival associations.
Beeghly-Fadiel A, Luu HN, Du L, Shi C, McGavic DP, Parikh AA, Raskin L
(2016) Int J Cancer 139: 2169-77
MeSH Terms: Adenocarcinoma, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Pancreatic Neoplasms, United States
Show Abstract · Added April 18, 2017
Diagnosed before age 50, early onset pancreatic malignancy (EOPM), is hypothesized to be a distinct subset of disease, although research is limited. To better characterize EOPM, and the effect of age at diagnosis on pancreatic cancer survival, we examined clinical characteristics and survival in EOPM and typical age-at-onset pancreatic malignancy (TOPM) cases. Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) Cancer Registry confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDACs) and malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) were evaluated. Clinical characteristics were compared using χ(2) tests. Overall survival was visualized with Kaplan-Meier functions; Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 1,697 pancreatic malignancies were diagnosed at the VUMC between 1988 and 2013. Of 1,407 PDACs, 118 (8.4%) were EOPM, which was associated with significantly better survival (adjusted HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67-1.00). EOPM and TOPM PDACs significantly differed with regard to having multiple malignancies; survival associations significantly differed by race, stage of disease, treatment and multiple malignancies. Of 190 PNETs, 63 (33.1%) were EOPM, which was not significantly associated with survival (adjusted HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.46-1.40). Malignant neuroendocrine EOPM and TOPM cases significantly differed by stage of disease and tumor location; survival associations significantly differed by family history of pancreatic cancer, stage of disease and multiple malignancies. Differences in clinical characteristics and associations with survival were identified, indicating that EOPM is distinct from TOPM, and exists among both pancreatic adenocarcinomas and malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
© 2016 UICC.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
14 MeSH Terms
Safety and Efficacy of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors.
Deppen SA, Liu E, Blume JD, Clanton J, Shi C, Jones-Jackson LB, Lakhani V, Baum RP, Berlin J, Smith GT, Graham M, Sandler MP, Delbeke D, Walker RC
(2016) J Nucl Med 57: 708-14
MeSH Terms: Female, Humans, Indium Radioisotopes, Intestinal Neoplasms, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Observer Variation, Organometallic Compounds, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Safety, Somatostatin, Stomach Neoplasms
Show Abstract · Added May 7, 2016
UNLABELLED - Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT compared with (111)In-pentetreotide imaging for diagnosis, staging, and restaging of pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
METHODS - (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were obtained for 78 of 97 consecutively enrolled patients with known or suspected pulmonary or gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Safety and toxicity were measured by comparing vital signs, serum chemistry values, or acquisition-related medical complications before and after (68)Ga-DOTATATE injection. Added value was determined by changes in treatment plan when (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT results were added to all prior imaging, including (111)In-pentetreotide. Interobserver reproducibility of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scan interpretation was measured between blinded and nonblinded interpreters.
RESULTS - (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were significantly different in impact on treatment (P < 0.001). (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT combined with CT or liver MRI changed care in 28 of 78 (36%) patients. Interobserver agreement between blinded and nonblinded interpreters was high. No participant had a trial-related event requiring treatment. Mild, transient events were tachycardia in 1, alanine transaminase elevation in 1, and hyperglycemia in 2 participants. No clinically significant arrhythmias occurred. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT correctly identified 3 patients for peptide-receptor radiotherapy incorrectly classified by (111)In-pentetreotide.
CONCLUSION - (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was equivalent or superior to (111)In-pentetreotide imaging in all 78 patients. No adverse events requiring treatment were observed. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT changed treatment in 36% of participants. Given the lack of significant toxicity, lower radiation exposure, and improved accuracy compared with (111)In-pentetreotide, (68)Ga-DOTATATE imaging should be used instead of (111)In-pentetreotide imaging where available.
© 2016 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
0 Communities
1 Members
0 Resources
16 MeSH Terms
Expression of CD24, a Stem Cell Marker, in Pancreatic and Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors.
Salaria S, Means A, Revetta F, Idrees K, Liu E, Shi C
(2015) Am J Clin Pathol 144: 642-8
MeSH Terms: Biomarkers, Tumor, CD24 Antigen, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Intestinal Neoplasms, Neoplastic Stem Cells, Neuroendocrine Tumors, Pancreatic Neoplasms
Show Abstract · Added October 8, 2015
OBJECTIVES - CD24 has been considered a normal and cancer stem cell marker. Potential intestinal stem cells weakly express CD24. In the pancreas, CD24 is a possible cancer stem cell marker for ductal adenocarcinoma.
METHODS - Expression of CD24 in intestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) was examined. Immunohistochemistry was performed on benign duodenum, ileum mucosa, and pancreas, as well as primary duodenal, primary and metastatic ileal, and pancreatic NETs.
RESULTS - Scattered CD24-positive cells were noted in the duodenal and ileal crypts, most of which showed a strong subnuclear labeling pattern. Similar expression was observed in 41 (95%) of 43 primary ileal NETs but in only four (15%) of 26 duodenal NETs (P < .01). In addition, metastatic ileal NETs retained CD24 expression. Pancreatic islets did not express CD24, and only rare cells had subnuclear labeling of CD24 in the pancreatic ducts. Unlike ileal NETs, only five (5%) of 92 pancreatic NETs expressed CD24 in the subnuclear compartment (P < .01). All five NETs showed a unique morphology with prominent stromal fibrosis.
CONCLUSIONS - CD24 expression was frequent in primary and metastatic midgut NETs but rare in pancreatic and duodenal NETs. Expression of CD24 in ileal NETs may have future diagnostic and therapeutic implications.
Copyright© by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.
0 Communities
2 Members
0 Resources
8 MeSH Terms