Background: One of the controversial issues in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) is the accurate prediction of their clinical behaviour. Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) biopsy in the diagnosis and grading of pNETs in a certified ENETS Center. Methods: A prospectively maintained database of EUS biopsy procedures was retrospectively reviewed to identify all consecutive patients referred to a certified ENETS Center with a suspicion of pNET between June 2014 and April 2017. The cytological and/or histological specimens were stained and the Ki-67 labeling index was evaluated. In patients undergoing surgery, the grade obtained with EUS-guided biopsy was compared with the final histological grade. The grade was evaluated according to the 2017 WHO classifications and grading. Results: The study population included 59 patients. EUS biopsy material reached an adequacy of 98.3% and was adequate for Ki-67 evaluation in 84.7% of cases. Twenty-nine patients (49.2%) underwent surgery. Of these, 25 patients had Ki-67 evaluated on EUS biopsy: the agreement between EUS biopsy grading and surgical specimen grading was 84%. Conclusion: EUS biopsy is an accurate method for the diagnosis and grading of pNETs based on the WHO 2017 Ki-67 labelling scheme.

Keywords:
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, Endoscopic ultrasound, Biopsy, Grading, Neuroendocrine tumour
1.
Vagefi PA, Razo O, Deshpande V, McGrath DJ, Lauwers GY, Thayer SP, et al. Evolving patterns in the detection and outcomes of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience from 1977 to 2005.
Arch Surg
. 2007 Apr; 142(4): 347–54.
2.
Alexakis N, Neoptolemos JP. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol
. 2008; 22(1): 183–205.
3.
Adsay V. Ki67 labeling index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal and pancreatobiliary tract: to count or not to count is not the question, but rather how to count.
Am J Surg Pathol
. 2012 Dec; 36(12): 1743–6.
4.
Ekeblad S, Skogseid B, Dunder K, Oberg K, Eriksson B. Prognostic factors and survival in 324 patients with pancreatic endocrine tumor treated at a single institution.
Clin Cancer Res
. 2008 Dec; 14(23): 7798–803.
5.
La Rosa S, Klersy C, Uccella S, Dainese L, Albarello L, Sonzogni A, et al. Improved histologic and clinicopathologic criteria for prognostic evaluation of pancreatic endocrine tumors.
Hum Pathol
. 2009 Jan; 40(1): 30–40.
6.
Pape UF, Berndt U, Müller-Nordhorn J, Böhmig M, Roll S, Koch M, et al. Prognostic factors of long-term outcome in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
Endocr Relat Cancer
. 2008 Dec; 15(4): 1083–97.
7.
Bosman FT, Hruban RH, Theise ND. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.
8.
Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, Caplin M, et al.; Vienna Consensus Conference participants. ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for the Management of Patients with Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.
Neuroendocrinology
. 2016; 103(2): 153–71.
9.
Farrell JM, Pang JC, Kim GE, Tabatabai ZL. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: accurate grading with Ki-67 index on fine-needle aspiration specimens using the WHO 2010/ENETS criteria.
Cancer Cytopathol
. 2014 Oct; 122(10): 770–8.
10.
Weynand B, Borbath I, Bernard V, Sempoux C, Gigot JF, Hubert C, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour grading on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: high reproducibility and inter-observer agreement of the Ki-67 labelling index.
Cytopathology
. 2014 Dec; 25(6): 389–95.
11.
Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J, Trevino JM, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions.
Endoscopy
. 2013 Jun; 45(6): 445–50.
12.
Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ, Yamamoto N, Hamada T, Uchino R, et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses.
Dig Dis Sci
. 2014 Jul; 59(7): 1578–85.
13.
Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
Gastrointest Endosc
. 2012 Feb; 75(2): 319–31.
14.
Hosoda W, Takagi T, Mizuno N, Shimizu Y, Sano T, Yamao K, et al. Diagnostic approach to pancreatic tumors with the specimens of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.
Pathol Int
. 2010 May; 60(5): 358–64.
15.
Artale S, Giannetta L, Cerea G, Maggioni D, Pedrazzoli P, Schiavetto I, et al. Treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas based on WHO classification.
Anticancer Res
. 2005 Nov-Dec; 25 6C: 4463–9.
16.
Chaudhry A, Oberg K, Wilander E. A study of biological behavior based on the expression of a proliferating antigen in neuroendocrine tumors of the digestive system.
Tumour Biol
. 1992; 13(1-2): 27–35.
17.
Couvelard A, Deschamps L, Ravaud P, Baron G, Sauvanet A, Hentic O, et al. Heterogeneity of tumor prognostic markers: a reproducibility study applied to liver metastases of pancreatic endocrine tumors.
Mod Pathol
. 2009 Feb; 22(2): 273–81.
18.
Yang Z, Tang LH, Klimstra DS. Effect of tumor heterogeneity on the assessment of Ki67 labeling index in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver: implications for prognostic stratification.
Am J Surg Pathol
. 2011 Jun; 35(6): 853–60.
19.
Pezzilli R, Partelli S, Cannizzaro R, Pagano N, Crippa S, Pagnanelli M, et al. Ki-67 prognostic and therapeutic decision driven marker for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs): A systematic review.
Adv Med Sci
. 2016 Mar; 61(1): 147–53.
20.
Scarpa A, Mantovani W, Capelli P, Beghelli S, Boninsegna L, Bettini R, et al. Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients.
Mod Pathol
. 2010 Jun; 23(6): 824–33.
21.
Hasegawa T, Yamao K, Hijioka S, Bhatia V, Mizuno N, Hara K, et al. Evaluation of Ki-67 index in EUS-FNA specimens for the assessment of malignancy risk in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
Endoscopy
. 2014 Jan; 46(1): 32–8.
22.
Laskiewicz L, Jamshed S, Gong Y, Ainechi S, LaFemina J, Wang X. The diagnostic value of FNA biopsy in grading pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
Cancer Cytopathol
. 2018 Mar; 126(3): 170–8.
23.
Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Shahid H, O’Donnell S, Tolin J, Loren DE, et al. False-positive EUS-guided FNA cytology for solid pancreatic lesions.
Gastrointest Endosc
. 2011 Sep; 74(3): 535–40.
24.
Jhala NC, Jhala D, Eltoum I, Vickers SM, Wilcox CM, Chhieng DC, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a powerful tool to obtain samples from small lesions.
Cancer
. 2004 Aug; 102(4): 239–46.
25.
Jhala NC, Jhala D, Eloubeidi MA, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, Roberson J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the adrenal glands: analysis of 24 patients.
Cancer
. 2004 Oct; 102(5): 308–14.
26.
Larghi A, Capurso G, Carnuccio A, Ricci R, Alfieri S, Galasso D, et al. Ki-67 grading of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors on histologic samples obtained by EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition: a prospective study.
Gastrointest Endosc
. 2012 Sep; 76(3): 570–7.
27.
Witt BL, Factor RE, Chadwick BE, Caron J, Siddiqui AA, Adler DG. Evaluation of the SharkCore® needle for EUS-guided core biopsy of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
Endosc Ultrasound
. 2018 Sep-Oct; 7(5): 323–8.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.