Immunohistochemical staining for CDX-2, PDX-1, NESP-55, and TTF-1 can help distinguish gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors from pancreatic endocrine and pulmonary carcinoid tumors.
ABSTRACT Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNET) of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and lung are histologically similar. Thus, predicting the site of origin of a metastasis is not possible on morphologic grounds. Prior immunohistochemical studies of WDNET have yielded conflicting results, and pancreatic and duodenal homeobox factor-1 (PDX-1) has not previously been evaluated in this context. We therefore analyzed the expression of CDX-2, PDX-1, TTF-1, and neuroendocrine secretory protein-55 (NESP-55), a recently described member of the chromogranin family, in primary and metastatic WDNET. In total, 64 gastrointestinal carcinoids (5 stomach; 5 duodenum; 31 ileum; 11 appendix; and 12 rectum); 39 pancreatic endocrine tumors (PET); and 20 pulmonary carcinoid tumors were studied. PET were positive for NESP-55 (16/39) and PDX-1 (11/39); 3/31 also showed heterogeneous positivity for CDX-2. Ileal carcinoids were exclusively positive for CDX-2 (30/31) and negative for all other markers. Appendiceal carcinoids were uniformly positive for CDX-2 (11/11). All rectal carcinoids were negative for CDX-2 and TTF-1; 2/12 were positive for PDX-1, and 1/12 for NESP-55. The gastric and duodenal carcinoids were only positive for PDX-1 (7/10). TTF-1 positivity was confined to pulmonary carcinoids (7/20); 1/20 was positive for NESP-55; and all were negative for CDX-2 and PDX-1. NESP-55 and PDX-1 positivity, in the presence of negative CDX-2 and TTF-1, was 97% specific for PET. The sensitivity and specificity of CDX-2 positivity for predicting an ileal primary, when PDX-1, NESP-55, and TTF-1 were negative, was 97% and 91%, respectively. TTF-1 positivity was confined to pulmonary carcinoids in our study but was present in only about a third of cases. A panel of these 4 markers may be useful in predicting the primary site of metastatic WDNET.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Imaging modalities of neuroendocrine tumors have evolved in recent years, and new radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic purpose are available in Lebanon since several years. After a historical and clinical review, we recall the role of the different radiopharmaceuticals and illustrate their developments through scintigraphic procedures, PET/CT facilities and radiometabolic therapy performed in our nuclear medicine departments.Medecine Nucleaire 01/2015; 39. DOI:10.1016/j.mednuc.2014.12.005 · 0.16 Impact Factor
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine 01/2014; 55(3). DOI:10.2967/jnumed.113.133116 · 5.56 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Neuroendocrine tumors are a heterogeneous group of malignancies that present a diagnostic challenge. The majority of patients (more than 60%) present with metastatic disease at diagnosis. The diagnosis is based on histopathology, imaging, and circulating biomarkers. The histopathology should contain specific neuroendocrine markers such as chromogranin A, synaptophysin, and neuron-specific enolase and also an estimate of the proliferation by Ki-67 (MIB1). Standard imaging procedures consist of computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging together with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy. 68Ga-DOTA-octreotate scans will in the future replace somatostatin receptor scintigraphy because they have higher specificity and sensitivity. Other positron imaging tomographic scanning tracers that will come into clinical use are 18F-DOPA and 11C-5HTP. Neuroendocrine tumors secrete many different peptides and amines that can be used as circulating biomarkers. The most useful general marker is chromogranin A, which is both a diagnostic and prognostic marker in most neuroendocrine tumors. However, there is still a need for improved biomarkers for early detection and follow-up of patients during treatment. In addition, molecular imaging can be further developed for both detection and evaluation of treatment.Clinics (São Paulo, Brazil) 04/2012; 67 Suppl 1(S1):109-12. DOI:10.6061/clinics/2012(Sup01)18 · 1.42 Impact Factor