Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Benefit of Gene Expression Profiling in Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors of Unknown Primary Origin

JAMES J. SALLER, MINTALLAH HAIDER, SAMEER AL-DIFFALHA and DOMENICO COPPOLA
Anticancer Research March 2022, 42 (3) 1381-1396; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15608
JAMES J. SALLER
1Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MINTALLAH HAIDER
2Department of Gastro-intestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SAMEER AL-DIFFALHA
1Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOMENICO COPPOLA
1Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.;
3Department of Pathology, Florida Digestive Health Specialists, Bradenton, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Domenico.Coppola@fdhs.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP), representing 3-5% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the United States, is a presumptive, non-definitive diagnosis rendered when a primary tumor site cannot be identified after exhaustive diagnostic evaluation, including cases of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). CUPs are characterized by findings that are challenging to reconcile, including inconclusive immunohistochemical (IHC) stains, an undifferentiated morphologic phenotype, history of multiple cancers, a clinical presentation that is discordant from histologic findings, an atypical distribution of metastases, or lack of expected response to treatment. For a significant subset of NENs (10%), traditional diagnostic evaluation is unable to determine a primary tumor site using histomorphology and IHC stains. Gene expression profiling (GEP) of either mRNA or microRNA is the technique utilized in the three commercially available platforms that provide a prediction of tumor type in cases of diagnostic uncertainty of CUPs, including those with neuroendocrine differentiation. Case Series Report: Here we present four cases of NENs, where the diagnosis based upon histomorphological and IHC features presented a unique challenge that ultimately benefited from the integration of molecular tumor classification using the validated assay. CancerTYPE ID by Biotheranostics is based on a quantitative RT-PCR assay that uses a computational algorithm to measure the collective expression of 92 genes (87 cancer-related genes and 5 control genes). This case series reports five appropriate clinical scenarios that highlight the utility of a GEP-based assay to effectively provide a molecular tumor classification to identify NEN subtypes and tumor primary site of origin. Conclusion: These cases demonstrated that the CancerTYPE ID test was able to resolve challenging diagnoses for primary and metastatic NENs. These cases emphasize the clinical need of utilizing a GEP-based assay for determining the anatomic site of origin and NEN subtyping, both essential for the appropriate clinical management of NENs.

Key Words:
  • Cancer unknown primary
  • neuroendocrine
  • gene expression profiling
  • RT-PCR

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP; 3–5% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the United States) is a presumptive, non-definitive diagnosis rendered when a primary tumor site cannot be identified after exhaustive diagnostic evaluation (1-3). CUPs are characterized by findings that are challenging to reconcile, including inconclusive immunohistochemistry (IHC) stains, an undifferentiated morphologic phenotype, history of multiple cancers, a clinical presentation that is discordant from histologic findings, an atypical distribution of metastases, or a lack of expected response to treatment (1). Gene expression profiling (GEP) of either mRNA or microRNA is the technique utilized in the three major commercially available platforms that provide a molecular prediction of tumor type in cases of diagnostic uncertainty and CUPs, including CUPs with neuroendocrine differentiation (1, 4-6).

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are graded depending on their mitotic rate. The high-grade (poorly differentiated) tumors are referred to as neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), which occur at a significantly lower frequency than NETs. NECs usually present with metastatic disease and portend a worse prognosis. There are few reliable prognostic factors that demonstrate clinical utility with this type of tumors.

For a significant subset of NENs (10%), traditional diagnostic evaluation is unable to determine a primary tumor site using histomorphological tests and immunohistochemistry (IHC) (7). Regardless of anatomic site of origin, observation of exclusively large cell features, increased mitotic count and a high Ki-67 proliferation index are associated with unfavorable outcomes, whereas microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with favorable outcomes (8-11). Determination of the anatomic site of origin as well as the grade and level of differentiation of NENs are important regarding guidance of clinical management. There are cases where, despite exhaustive work up, there is still ambiguity and GEP may help in determining the site of origin and/or grade.

Recent molecular investigations are bringing more clarity to the genomic profiles in NETs and NECs (12-17). A study using a combination of whole genome and targeted exome sequencing demonstrated similarity between the genomic profiles of large and small cell pancreatic NECs, which were distinct from well differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) (14). This same study of small cell and large cell PNECs reported alterations in the p53 and the Rb/p16 pathways, as well as BCL2 overexpression, which were not dysregulated in PNETs. PNETs had genomic alterations (GAs) causing dysregulation in genes involved with chromatin remodeling, such as MEN1, DAXX and ATRX, genes involved with DNA damage repair and telomere maintenance, and genes in the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway (14). Although loss of PTEN, ATRX and DAXX expression are characteristic of lower grade PNETs, their loss may carry a worse prognosis (14). Moreover, GEP of PNETs identified a subgroup associated with HIF signaling (18). PNETs have also been reported to upregulate epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) by signaling involving SLUG, through increased expression of the cancer stem cell marker DCLK1 as well as Cathepsin Z (19-21). PNECs have similarly been shown to upregulate EMT, however the mechanism of EMT upregulation observed in PNECs has been reported to involve a relative decrease in expression of the adhesion molecules, a relative decrease in E-cadherin/β-catenin complex integrity and a relatively higher expression of transcriptional repressors (Snail1, Snail2, Twist and Foxc2) when compared with PNETs (22-24). NETs and NECs have been shown to differ in terms of biologic behavior and responsiveness to different therapies, based on GEP and types of GAs that are oncogenic drivers, when compared to other NETs and NECs from different anatomic sites of origin (8-14, 17, 18, 25-82).

Evaluation by histomorphology and IHC may be of significant value in confirming neuroendocrine differentiation for the majority of cases. However, being solely reliant on histomorphology of a limited number of lineage markers such as CDX-2, PDX-1, NESP-55, TTF-1 and PAX8 presents challenges in definitively determining the NEN subtype (43, 62).

A straight-forward diagnosis may become further complicated by the possibility of considering mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs), which is an entity found throughout the gastrointestinal tract (83-88). Identification of a non-neuroendocrine component is important in distinguishing NEC from MiNEN, while intratumoral heterogeneity may present a challenge in definitively determining whether a tumor is composed of at least 30% neuroendocrine and non-neuroendocrine component.

Efforts to utilize IHC to evaluate NENs prognostically have reported results that do not warrant mainstream use to inform clinical decision-making. Preliminary studies initially supported the role of CD117 and Cytokeratin 19 (CK19) as potential biomarkers with utility as poor prognostic factors (45,89). However, further studies demonstrated inter-study variability regarding the association of CD117 and CK19 with prognosis; thus, further investigation should be performed in order to accurately assess the utility of CD117 and CK19 as potential metrics as prognostic biomarkers (17, 45, 49, 89). Interestingly, in a study of 109 patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEP-NEC), multivariate analysis demonstrated that elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were factors that were significantly associated with unfavorable prognosis and were determined to be more useful than histomorphological markers (44). With the paucity of available clinical data for prospective IHC-based and serological prognostic biomarkers, reliable GEP-based assays would significantly facilitate the clinical management of NENs.

GEP is an effective adjunctive means of prognostic assessment in the assignment of probability of subtype categories that represent lower-grade NENs (carcinoids) as well as higher-grade NECs (small cell carcinomas and large cell carcinomas). Their grade and level of differentiation also carries treatment implications (12). GEP is an effective method in determining the anatomic site of origin, which is important in determining the grading and staging of NENs (63, 74, 90-95).

Here we present four cases of NENs, where the diagnosis based upon histomorphological and IHC features presented a unique challenge that ultimately benefited from the integration of molecular tumor classification using CancerTYPE ID®. CancerTYPE ID® (Biotheranostics, San Diego, CA, USA) is a validated assay based on quantitative RT-PCR assay that uses a computational algorithm to measure the collective expression of 92 genes (87 cancer-related genes and 5 control genes) and a reference database of more than 2,000 well characterized tumors to classify a tumor sample into 28 different main tumor types and 50 tumor sub-types. In cases where imaging, pathological workup including IHC (83, 96-98), and other diagnostic tests are unable to identify the NEN subtype, molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID® has shown particular utility in correctly classifying the NENs with obvious impact on patient therapy. Furthermore, we propose a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates molecular tumor classification for NEN subtyping and anatomic primary site identification.

Case Series Report

Case selection and pathological evaluation. The objective of this retrospective study was to identify cases of metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) where molecular tumor classification by the 92-gene assay was used to reach the final diagnosis and likely impacted patient treatment. An initial review of clinical cases undergoing pathological evaluation for metastatic NEN identified at least four cases where integration of the 92-gene assay CancerTYPE ID® (Biotheranostics Inc.) significantly contributed to the final diagnosis. Pathological evaluation for NEN included a review of the clinical case history, histomorphological examination of biopsy material and immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis using protocols that are standardized within the CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited laboratory within the Department of Pathology at Moffitt Cancer Center. Information on the antibodies used for IHC can be found in Table I. Molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID® was ordered as part of the diagnostic work up for these cases.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Antibodies used for immunohistochemistry analysis.

CancerTYPE ID® testing. Formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor blocks were shipped to Biotheranostics, a CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited laboratory to perform molecular tumor classification using CancerTYPE ID®. CancerTYPE ID® consists of a standardized laboratory workflow where the sample undergoes histological evaluation based on H&E staining by a board-certified pathologist to designate tumor regions for enrichment by laser microdissection. Total RNA collected from tumor-enriched cells served as the input for the 92-gene RT-PCR assay, a validated gene expression-based classifier that uses a pre-specified computational algorithm that applies linear discriminant analysis to generate probabilities for candidate tumor types based on the degree of similarity of the queried sample to the reference tumor database (99). The assay classifies 50 different tumor types and tumor subtypes from 105 different morphologies. The CancerTYPE ID® test report is structured as a two-level labeling scheme: A Main Tumor Type (i.e., Neuroendocrine) and a second tier Tumor Subtype (i.e., Small/large cell lung carcinoma). In some cases, additional main tumor type(s) with ≥5% probability are included in the test report as rule-in tumor type(s) with lower probabilities. Tumor types with a combined probability of <5% that can be ruled out with 95% confidence are also included (i.e., rule-out tumor types).

Patient 1

Clinical presentation, imaging, and surgical intervention. An 84-year-old woman presented to the hospital with severe anemia of uncertain etiology. Initial chest and abdominal CT scan showed a lung node as well as several hepatic lesions. A liver core biopsy obtained suggested an initial interpretation of spindle cell neoplasm, favoring Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST) based on spindle features and CD117 positivity.

Pathology evaluation. Evaluation of H&E sections at Moffitt Cancer Center described a neoplasm composed of spindle cells with a high nuclear-cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio, abundant mitoses and tumor necrosis (Figure 1A). Considerations in the differential diagnosis included spindle cell tumors (leiomyosarcoma, GIST), melanoma, spindle cell carcinoma of the lung and NET. To further narrow the wide differential diagnosis, additional IHC was performed. Tumor cells stained positive for MOC31, CD117, synaptophysin, chromogranin and AE1/AE3, but negative for S100 and HMB45. Of note, CD117 has been shown to be positive in a subset of colorectal NETs (Figure 2B and Table I) (42). Ki67 staining demonstrated a 15-20% proliferation index, which is at the upper end for an intermediate Grade 2 tumor. Whereas the IHC profile is consistent with a NET, the lack of protein markers for NET subtypes combined with the clinical presentation of metastatic disease limited further NET subtyping by immunomorphology alone.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Liver biopsy of the neoplasm predominantly composed of spindle cells in Patient 1. (A) Low power view illustrating areas of tumor necrosis. (B) High power view illustrating spindle morphology with a high N/C ratio.

Molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID®. FFPE tissue from the liver biopsy was submitted to Biotheranostics for testing with the CancerTYPE ID® platform. Within 5 days of receiving the tissue, Biotheranostics returned the CancerTYPE ID® report that indicated a Main Tumor Type of Neuroendocrine (96% probability) and a Main Tumor Subtype of lung carcinoid (Table II). The other NET subtypes reported by CancerTYPE ID® (Merkel cell carcinoma, Small/Large cell carcinoma, GI carcinoid and Islet cell carcinoma) have a combined probability of <5% but cannot be statistically excluded.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Summary of cases with their evaluation.

Impact of molecular tumor classification and treatment. In the context of the patient’s history of a lung mass with multiple liver lesions, the results of the tumor’s GEP helped to inform the diagnosis, which was determined to be a well-differentiated (grade 2) NET originating from the lung. This result guided therapy and impacted this patient’s outcome.

Patient 2

Clinical presentation, imaging, and surgical intervention. A 67-year-old male smoker with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia and peripheral vascular disease presented to the hospital Emergency Department for right-sided numbness and tremors, with occasional loss of motor control in recent weeks. A head CT demonstrated a low-density lesion in the inferior left thalamus, extending into the left cerebral peduncle with surrounding vasogenic edema. An MRI of the brain illustrated left-sided dural enhancement, with a 1 cm uniformly enhancing nodule in the anterior right temporal lobe, and a second 1.7×1.2 cm lesion with central necrosis at the juncture of the left thalamus and left cerebral peduncle. A CT scan of the chest, abdomen and pelvis showed no evidence of metastatic disease or suspicious adenopathy, with a non-contributory medical history. Resection of the right temporal lobe lesion for tissue diagnosis was performed 3 days later, as well as metastatic work up to obtain an accurate diagnosis and guidance for adjuvant treatment.

Pathology evaluation. Intraoperative evaluation demonstrated highly cellular sheets of a patternless neoplasm with abrupt borders, with mildly reactive brain and subtle infiltration. The neoplastic cells had scant eosinophilic cytoplasm with indiscernible borders and irregular hyperchromatic nuclei lacking nucleoli, with frequent mitoses (12 in a single High Power Field) (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated that the tumor cells stained mildly positive for CAM5.2, had strong uniform nuclear staining for TTF1, and weak inconsistent vimentin and pan-keratin positivity (Table I). Tumor cells were negative for CK7 and CK20. Synaptophysin highlighted normal brain, and at the tumor-brain interface there was delicate granular positivity extending between clusters of tumor cells. GFAP was expressed in scattered neoplastic cells, as well as in reactive astrocytes. Nuclear p53 overexpression was noted in approximately 50% of tumor cell nuclei, and Ki-67 demonstrated a proliferative index of 60%. Mutant IDH1R132H and BRAFV600E were both negative; and retained expression was observed for both ATRX and INI1 (SMARCB1) (Table I, Figure 3). The observed tumor histomorphology and inconclusive IHC stains in this case presented the possibility of either a glioma or a NEC that could not be further classified.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for Patient 1. The tumor cells are positive for CD117, MOC31, AE1/AE3, chromogranin and synaptophysin. Ki67 staining demonstrates a proliferation index of 15-20%.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemical (IHC) stains for Patient 2. The tumor is highly cellular with an abrupt margin with focal geographic micronecrosis. The tumor cells have scant eosinophilic cytoplasm with irregular hyperchromatic nuclei lacking nucleoli. ATRX expression is retained, and a manual semiquantitative assessment of Ki-67 labelling shows a proliferative index of 60%. Nuclear p53 overexpression is noted in about 50% of tumor cell nuclei. CAM5.2 shows delicate positive expression, synaptophysin highlights normal brain, and at the tumor-brain interface there is delicate granular positivity extends between clusters of tumor cells, and TTF1 shows strong uniform nuclear expression.

Molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID®. FFPE tissue from the brain biopsy was submitted to Biotheranostics for testing with the CancerTYPE ID® platform. Within 4 days of receiving the tissue, Biotheranostics returned the CancerTYPE ID® report that indicated a main tumor type of neuroendocrine (96% probability) and a main tumor subtype of small/large cell lung carcinoma (Table I). The other NET subtypes reported by CancerTYPE ID® (Merkel cell carcinoma, Small/Large cell carcinoma, GI carcinoid and Islet cell carcinoma) have a combined probability of <5% but cannot be statistically excluded. Importantly, CancerTYPE ID® ruled out brain as a possible main tumor type with 95% confidence.

Impact of molecular tumor classification and treatment. Based on the patient’s clinical history histological analysis including positive TTF-1 staining, the molecular tumor subtype classification helped to resolve a diagnosis of small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung for this metastatic patient.

Patient 3

Clinical presentation, imaging, and surgical intervention. A 59-year-old female suffered a pathologic fracture of her right humerus, and upon initial assessment was subsequently determined to have an associated soft tissue mass. She underwent resection of the mass with reconstruction of her right humerus using an intercalary prosthetic graft. Her staging CT in the thorax/abdomen revealed right axillary, left supraclavicular, and mediastinal lymphadenopathy with an epicardial mass, which were concerning for metastatic disease.

Pathology evaluation. Histological evaluation of the fracture site of her right humerus revealed a high-grade malignancy composed of blue round cells, with frequent mitotic activity and extensive necrosis (Figure 4A and B). Immunohistochemical studies demonstrated that the tumor cells were strongly and diffusely positive for synaptophysin (Figure 4C), focally positive for chromogranin, and negative for keratin AE1/AE3/CAM 5.2, CEA (polyclonal), KER903, CK7, CK20, CD99, TTF-1, Desmin, actin, CD45, S-100 and bcl-2. Ki-67 was positive in 80% of the tumor cell nuclei (3+) by manual quantitative analysis (Figure 4D). Cytogenetics demonstrated a normal female karyotype and the possibility of a hematopoietic malignancy was ruled out. Molecular testing by RT-DNA amplification did not detect a fusion transcript for EWSR1/FLI1, and there was no detection of any rearrangements involving the EWSR1 (22q12) locus.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemical (IHC) stains for Patient 3. High-grade malignancy composed of blue round cells. (A) Low power view illustrating extensive tumor necrosis. (B) High power view illustrating high-grade morphologic features with a high N/C ratio. (C) The tumor cells were strongly and diffusely positive for synaptophysin. (D) The Ki67 stain demonstrated a proliferation index of 80%.

Molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID®. A CancerTYPE ID® test was ordered, which determined that there was a 96% probability that the main cancer type was neuroendocrine in nature. Of the potential subtypes that were determined, the CancerTYPE ID® test had assigned a 63% probability that the tumor was a small/large cell lung carcinoma, and 33% probability that the tumor was a Merkel cell carcinoma.

Impact of molecular tumor classification and treatment. These subtypes correspond to the high-grade description of the tumor’s morphology. After treatment, restaging radiographs of her right humerus demonstrated improvement consistent with a response to her therapy.

Patient 4

Clinical presentation, imaging, and surgical intervention. A 57-year-old woman with history of vertigo and migraines presented to the Emergency Department of an outside hospital with diplopia, an intractable headache and nausea. An MRI of the brain demonstrated metastatic disease to the left skull with extension into the left cavernous sinus and encasement of left cavernous carotid artery.

The tumor extended to the left posterior orbit and superior orbital fissure with involvement of the distribution of maxillary division of left trigeminal nerve. There was impingement observed upon compression of left optic nerve by tumor at the level of the optic foramen. A CT of the abdomen and pelvis identified hepatomegaly with numerous solid masses throughout the liver.

A CT of the thorax identified multiple lung masses associated with extensive mediastinal adenopathy. An MRI of the abdomen identified small bilateral pleural effusions, multiple hepatic lesions with unusual enhancement, at least 6 lesions in left hepatic lobe and multi-segmental multifocal lesions in the right lobe with a large confluence of lesions in central right liver. A PET scan demonstrated near complete collapse of the left lung with large space-occupying pleural effusion and hypermetabolic left perihilar soft tissue mass, multiple hypermetabolic liver metastases, with increased uptake in the distal esophagus and gastric cardia, a hypermetabolic focus in the region of the left cavernous sinus, hypermetabolic thoracic, right supraclavicular, infraclavicular and peripancreatic lymph nodes. A liver biopsy was obtained for diagnosis and treatment planning.

Pathology evaluation. A CT-guided biopsy of a liver mass was morphologically described on H&E as a poorly differentiated malignant neoplasm (Figure 5A and B). The malignant cells were initially characterized as negative for expression of AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, PAX8, TTF1, GATA3, CD45, Hepatocyte Specific Antigen (Hep Par-1), S100, CD56, Synaptophysin and Chromogranin. Per a review at John’s Hopkins Hospital, further immunostains characterized the malignant cells as focally positive for CAM 5.2 and AE1/AE3; as well as negative for expression of CK903, INSM1, CD99, CD34, ERG, Arginase, Glypican-3 and p40 with retained expression of INI-1.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Patient 4. A CT-guided biopsy of a liver mass was morphologically described on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) as a poorly differentiated malignant neoplasm. (A) The malignant cells were cohesive, growing in sheets with enlarged vesicular nuclei and variable amounts of cytoplasm. (B) Abundant mitotic activity and apoptosis were observed. The malignant cells were immunohistochemically negative for (C) Synaptophysin and (D) Chromogranin; while demonstrating (E) faint positivity for OSCAR; as well as demonstrating (F) a Ki-67 proliferation rate of greater than 80%.

Since the specimen was morphologically consistent with a large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, neuroendocrine markers were repeated (CD56, Synaptophysin and Chromogranin) and were negative (Figure 5C and D), which corroborated the initial Synaptophysin and Chromogranin negativity. Squamous markers (CK5/6, p63 and p40) were also negative. OSCAR was faintly positive and a Ki-67/CD45 (multiplex) immunohistochemical study demonstrated a proliferation rate of greater than 80% upon review at Moffitt Cancer Center (Figure 5E and F). The immunoprofile in this tumor was negative for repeated attempts at immunostains for neuroendocrine markers, which presented a diagnostic challenge, as large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) typically demonstrates positivity in at least one neuroendocrine marker.

Molecular tumor classification by CancerTYPE ID®. For further clarification, Biotheranostics CancerTYPE ID® was requested, which reported a 90% probability of small/large cell lung neuroendocrine carcinoma. Other cancer types with less than a 5% probability included cervical adenocarcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung, head and neck, skin or cervix; as well as thyroid follicular/papillary or medullary carcinoma. Lack of PAX8 expression excluded cervical and thyroid primaries and lack of TTF1 expression excluded a lung primary as a consideration.

Impact of molecular tumor classification and treatment. The results of the Biotheranostics CancerTYPE ID® were invaluable in context of this uncommonly observed immunoprofile, as the tumor’s histomorphology, mitotic rate as well as the proliferative index were consistent with a LCNEC of pulmonary origin. These findings assisted in determining clinical management, as these results enabled treatment-based decisions to be made that could provide systemic treatment with greater precision when compared to making treatment-based decisions agnostic of the CancerTYPE ID® test results. The patient was subsequently treated with palliative chemotherapy (carboplatin and etoposide). Interim restaging scans revealed interval improvement in mediastinal lymphadenopathy, as well as a decrease in size of numerous liver metastases and there was no progression in other sites. Clinically, her ECOG improved dramatically with total independence in ADL, while she experienced a resolution of her nausea and she reported improvement in left eye vision. The patient has continued on palliative systemic chemotherapy with disease stability and increased quality of life.

Discussion

Here we report four appropriate clinical scenarios that highlight the utility of a GEP-molecular based assay to identify NEN subtypes and tumor sites of origin when dealing with metastatic NENs.

These cases demonstrated that the CancerTYPE ID® test facilitated in the resolution of particularly challenging diagnoses for primary and metastatic NENs. In a blinded study evaluating the performance of CancerTYPE ID® that included 44 metastatic and 31 primary NENs, the assay demonstrated a high level of accuracy for the classification of both well-differentiated (97%) and poorly differentiated NENs (87%). The CancerTYPE ID® test was determined to be significantly more accurate than the use of histology and IHCs to establish the neoplasms’ primary sites (43, 62). Further analysis demonstrated that 15 of 87 cancer-related genes demonstrated sufficient discriminatory value for accurate subtyping of NENs. Given the significance of determining the anatomic site of origin for clinical management, the ability of CancerTYPE ID® to differentiate NEN subtypes supports the clinical utility of molecular tumor classification (93). Differentiating the NEN’s subtype and anatomic site of origin for an indeterminate NEN has significant implications for clinical management.

The importance of determining the tumor site of origin is further emphasized when considering that therapeutic indications granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are largely cancer type specific, with the recent approval for immunotherapy for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) status in solid tumors being a notable unprecedented exception (100). For metastatic tumors the accurate diagnosis of their site of origin is important not only for treatment decisions but also in determining cancer risk for the patients’ relatives (101). Development of targeted therapies and precision-based management has become increasingly relevant given the driver mutations that have been identified in NENs. Recent efforts have included investigation of inhibitors targeting signaling in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway (everolimus), the MET pathway and the vascular endothelial factor (VEGF) pathway (sunitinib) (11, 15, 17, 31-33, 37, 38, 59, 102-114). These investigative efforts were typically focused on specific organ systems as dictated by the requirement for the approval of targeted agents. Thus, the clinical need for determination of the tumor anatomic site of origin is a plausible reason to utilize a GEP-based assay as an effective tool for the clinical management of NENs (11, 17, 31-33, 35, 37-41, 63, 92, 103-109, 115, 116).

Acknowledgements

The project described was supported by H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Department of Pathology departmental funds. Editorial assistance was provided by the Moffitt Cancer Center’s Office of Scientific Publishing by Daley Drucker. No compensation was given beyond her regular salary.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    James Saller and Sameer Al Diffalha drafted the manuscript, Mintallah Haider revised the original draft, James Saller completed the references, Domenico Coppola planned, originated and supervised the study.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

  • Received December 11, 2021.
  • Revision received January 13, 2022.
  • Accepted January 27, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Meiri E,
    2. Mueller WC,
    3. Rosenwald S,
    4. Zepeniuk M,
    5. Klinke E,
    6. Edmonston TB,
    7. Werner M,
    8. Lass U,
    9. Barshack I,
    10. Feinmesser M,
    11. Huszar M,
    12. Fogt F,
    13. Ashkenazi K,
    14. Sanden M,
    15. Goren E,
    16. Dromi N,
    17. Zion O,
    18. Burnstein I,
    19. Chajut A,
    20. Spector Y and
    21. Aharonov R
    : A second-generation microRNA-based assay for diagnosing tumor tissue origin. Oncologist 17(6): 801-812, 2012. PMID: 22618571. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0466
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lin F and
    2. Liu H
    : Immunohistochemistry in undifferentiated neoplasm/tumor of uncertain origin. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(12): 1583-1610, 2014. PMID: 25427040. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0061-RA
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Bugat R,
    2. Bataillard A,
    3. Lesimple T,
    4. Voigt JJ,
    5. Culine S,
    6. Lortholary A,
    7. Merrouche Y,
    8. Ganem G,
    9. Kaminsky MC,
    10. Negrier S,
    11. Perol M,
    12. Laforêt C,
    13. Bedossa P,
    14. Bertrand G,
    15. Coindre JM,
    16. Fizazi K and FNCLCC
    : Summary of the Standards, Options and Recommendations for the management of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (2002). Br J Cancer 89(Suppl 1): S59-S66, 2003. PMID: 12915904. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601085
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Weiss LM,
    2. Chu P,
    3. Schroeder BE,
    4. Singh V,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Erlander MG and
    7. Schnabel CA
    : Blinded comparator study of immunohistochemical analysis versus a 92-gene cancer classifier in the diagnosis of the primary site in metastatic tumors. J Mol Diagn 15(2): 263-269, 2013. PMID: 23287002. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2012.10.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rosenwald S,
    2. Gilad S,
    3. Benjamin S,
    4. Lebanony D,
    5. Dromi N,
    6. Faerman A,
    7. Benjamin H,
    8. Tamir R,
    9. Ezagouri M,
    10. Goren E,
    11. Barshack I,
    12. Nass D,
    13. Tobar A,
    14. Feinmesser M,
    15. Rosenfeld N,
    16. Leizerman I,
    17. Ashkenazi K,
    18. Spector Y,
    19. Chajut A and
    20. Aharonov R
    : Validation of a microRNA-based qRT-PCR test for accurate identification of tumor tissue origin. Mod Pathol 23(6): 814-823, 2010. PMID: 20348879. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.57
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kerr SE,
    2. Schnabel CA,
    3. Sullivan PS,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Singh V,
    6. Carey B,
    7. Erlander MG,
    8. Highsmith WE,
    9. Dry SM and
    10. Brachtel EF
    : Multisite validation study to determine performance characteristics of a 92-gene molecular cancer classifier. Clin Cancer Res 18(14): 3952-3960, 2012. PMID: 22648269. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0920
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Zuetenhorst JM and
    2. Taal BG
    : Metastatic carcinoid tumors: a clinical review. Oncologist 10(2): 123-131, 2005. PMID: 15709214. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.10-2-123
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Weinstock B,
    2. Ward SC,
    3. Harpaz N,
    4. Warner RR,
    5. Itzkowitz S and
    6. Kim MK
    : Clinical and prognostic features of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 98(3): 180-187, 2013. PMID: 24080744. DOI: 10.1159/000355612
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shen C,
    2. Yin Y,
    3. Chen H,
    4. Tang S,
    5. Yin X,
    6. Zhou Z,
    7. Zhang B and
    8. Chen Z
    : Neuroendocrine tumors of colon and rectum: validation of clinical and prognostic values of the World Health Organization 2010 grading classifications and European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society staging systems. Oncotarget 8(13): 22123-22134, 2017. PMID: 27902460. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13641
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rickman DS,
    2. Beltran H,
    3. Demichelis F and
    4. Rubin MA
    : Biology and evolution of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Nat Med 23(6): 1-10, 2017. PMID: 28586335. DOI: 10.1038/nm.4341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Hobday TJ,
    2. Qin R,
    3. Reidy-Lagunes D,
    4. Moore MJ,
    5. Strosberg J,
    6. Kaubisch A,
    7. Shah M,
    8. Kindler HL,
    9. Lenz HJ,
    10. Chen H and
    11. Erlichman C
    : Multicenter phase II trial of temsirolimus and bevacizumab in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol 33(14): 1551-1556, 2015. PMID: 25488966. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2082
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Shi C and
    2. Klimstra DS
    : Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: pathologic and molecular characteristics. Semin Diagn Pathol 31(6): 498-511, 2014. PMID: 25441311. DOI: 10.1053/j.semdp.2014.08.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Banck MS,
    2. Kanwar R,
    3. Kulkarni AA,
    4. Boora GK,
    5. Metge F,
    6. Kipp BR,
    7. Zhang L,
    8. Thorland EC,
    9. Minn KT,
    10. Tentu R,
    11. Eckloff BW,
    12. Wieben ED,
    13. Wu Y,
    14. Cunningham JM,
    15. Nagorney DM,
    16. Gilbert JA,
    17. Ames MM and
    18. Beutler AS
    : The genomic landscape of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Invest 123(6): 2502-2508, 2013. PMID: 23676460. DOI: 10.1172/JCI67963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Yachida S,
    2. Vakiani E,
    3. White CM,
    4. Zhong Y,
    5. Saunders T,
    6. Morgan R,
    7. de Wilde RF,
    8. Maitra A,
    9. Hicks J,
    10. Demarzo AM,
    11. Shi C,
    12. Sharma R,
    13. Laheru D,
    14. Edil BH,
    15. Wolfgang CL,
    16. Schulick RD,
    17. Hruban RH,
    18. Tang LH,
    19. Klimstra DS and
    20. Iacobuzio-Donahue CA
    : Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 36(2): 173-184, 2012. PMID: 22251937. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182417d36
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Sun J
    : Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Intractable Rare Dis Res 6(1): 21-28, 2017. PMID: 28357177. DOI: 10.5582/irdr.2017.01007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sorbye H,
    2. Strosberg J,
    3. Baudin E,
    4. Klimstra DS and
    5. Yao JC
    : Gastroenteropancreatic high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Cancer 120(18): 2814-2823, 2014. PMID: 24771552. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Ohmoto A,
    2. Rokutan H and
    3. Yachida S
    : Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: basic biology, current treatment strategies and prospects for the future. Int J Mol Sci 18(1): 143, 2017. PMID: 28098761. DOI: 10.3390/ijms18010143
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Scarpa A,
    2. Chang DK,
    3. Nones K,
    4. Corbo V,
    5. Patch AM,
    6. Bailey P,
    7. Lawlor RT,
    8. Johns AL,
    9. Miller DK,
    10. Mafficini A,
    11. Rusev B,
    12. Scardoni M,
    13. Antonello D,
    14. Barbi S,
    15. Sikora KO,
    16. Cingarlini S,
    17. Vicentini C,
    18. McKay S,
    19. Quinn MC,
    20. Bruxner TJ,
    21. Christ AN,
    22. Harliwong I,
    23. Idrisoglu S,
    24. McLean S,
    25. Nourse C,
    26. Nourbakhsh E,
    27. Wilson PJ,
    28. Anderson MJ,
    29. Fink JL,
    30. Newell F,
    31. Waddell N,
    32. Holmes O,
    33. Kazakoff SH,
    34. Leonard C,
    35. Wood S,
    36. Xu Q,
    37. Nagaraj SH,
    38. Amato E,
    39. Dalai I,
    40. Bersani S,
    41. Cataldo I,
    42. Dei Tos AP,
    43. Capelli P,
    44. Davì MV,
    45. Landoni L,
    46. Malpaga A,
    47. Miotto M,
    48. Whitehall VL,
    49. Leggett BA,
    50. Harris JL,
    51. Harris J,
    52. Jones MD,
    53. Humphris J,
    54. Chantrill LA,
    55. Chin V,
    56. Nagrial AM,
    57. Pajic M,
    58. Scarlett CJ,
    59. Pinho A,
    60. Rooman I,
    61. Toon C,
    62. Wu J,
    63. Pinese M,
    64. Cowley M,
    65. Barbour A,
    66. Mawson A,
    67. Humphrey ES,
    68. Colvin EK,
    69. Chou A,
    70. Lovell JA,
    71. Jamieson NB,
    72. Duthie F,
    73. Gingras MC,
    74. Fisher WE,
    75. Dagg RA,
    76. Lau LM,
    77. Lee M,
    78. Pickett HA,
    79. Reddel RR,
    80. Samra JS,
    81. Kench JG,
    82. Merrett ND,
    83. Epari K,
    84. Nguyen NQ,
    85. Zeps N,
    86. Falconi M,
    87. Simbolo M,
    88. Butturini G,
    89. Van Buren G,
    90. Partelli S,
    91. Fassan M,
    92. Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative, Khanna KK,
    93. Gill AJ,
    94. Wheeler DA,
    95. Gibbs RA,
    96. Musgrove EA,
    97. Bassi C,
    98. Tortora G,
    99. Pederzoli P,
    100. Pearson JV,
    101. Waddell N,
    102. Biankin AV and
    103. Grimmond SM
    : Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Nature 543(7643): 65-71, 2017. PMID: 28199314. DOI: 10.1038/nature21063
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ikezono Y,
    2. Koga H,
    3. Akiba J,
    4. Abe M,
    5. Yoshida T,
    6. Wada F,
    7. Nakamura T,
    8. Iwamoto H,
    9. Masuda A,
    10. Sakaue T,
    11. Yano H,
    12. Tsuruta O and
    13. Torimura T
    : Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and EMT behavior are driven by the CSC marker DCLK1. Mol Cancer Res 15(6): 744-752, 2017. PMID: 28179411. DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-16-0285
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Akkari L,
    2. Gocheva V,
    3. Kester JC,
    4. Hunter KE,
    5. Quick ML,
    6. Sevenich L,
    7. Wang HW,
    8. Peters C,
    9. Tang LH,
    10. Klimstra DS,
    11. Reinheckel T and
    12. Joyce JA
    : Distinct functions of macrophage-derived and cancer cell-derived cathepsin Z combine to promote tumor malignancy via interactions with the extracellular matrix. Genes Dev 28(19): 2134-2150, 2014. PMID: 25274726. DOI: 10.1101/gad.249599.114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Reinheckel T,
    2. Peters C,
    3. Krüger A,
    4. Turk B and
    5. Vasiljeva O
    : Differential impact of cysteine cathepsins on genetic mouse models of de novo carcinogenesis: Cathepsin B as emerging therapeutic target. Front Pharmacol 3: 133, 2012. PMID: 22798952. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2012.00133
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Hirano M,
    2. Hashimoto S,
    3. Yonemura S,
    4. Sabe H and
    5. Aizawa S
    : EPB41L5 functions to post-transcriptionally regulate cadherin and integrin during epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Cell Biol 182(6): 1217-1230, 2008. PMID: 18794329. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200712086
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ilett EE,
    2. Langer SW,
    3. Olsen IH,
    4. Federspiel B,
    5. Kjær A and
    6. Knigge U
    : Neuroendocrine carcinomas of the gastroenteropancreatic system: a comprehensive review. Diagnostics (Basel) 5(2): 119-176, 2015. PMID: 26854147. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics5020119
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Galván JA,
    2. Astudillo A,
    3. Vallina A,
    4. Fonseca PJ,
    5. Gómez-Izquierdo L,
    6. García-Carbonero R and
    7. González MV
    : Epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers in the differential diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 140(1): 61-72, 2013. PMID: 23765535. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPIV40ISTBXRAX
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Briest F and
    2. Grabowski P
    : PI3K-AKT-mTOR-signaling and beyond: the complex network in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Theranostics 4(4): 336-365, 2014. PMID: 24578720. DOI: 10.7150/thno.7851
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Modlin IM,
    2. Oberg K,
    3. Chung DC,
    4. Jensen RT,
    5. de Herder WW,
    6. Thakker RV,
    7. Caplin M,
    8. Delle Fave G,
    9. Kaltsas GA,
    10. Krenning EP,
    11. Moss SF,
    12. Nilsson O,
    13. Rindi G,
    14. Salazar R,
    15. Ruszniewski P and
    16. Sundin A
    : Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol 9(1): 61-72, 2008. PMID: 18177818. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70410-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Board PDQATE
    : Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (islet cell tumors) treatment (pdq(r)): Health professional version. In: Pdq cancer information summaries. Bethesda, MD, USA, National Cancer Institute USA, 2002.
    1. Kim ST,
    2. Lee SJ,
    3. Park SH,
    4. Park JO,
    5. Lim HY,
    6. Kang WK,
    7. Lee J and
    8. Park YS
    : Genomic profiling of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NET) patients in the personalized-medicine era. J Cancer 7(9): 1044-1048, 2016. PMID: 27326246. DOI: 10.7150/jca.14815
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pal S,
    2. Milowsky M,
    3. Elvin J,
    4. Ali S,
    5. Hoffman-censits J,
    6. Vergilio J,
    7. Suh J,
    8. Mian B,
    9. Fisher H,
    10. Nazeer T,
    11. Miller V,
    12. Stephens P and
    13. Ross J
    : Comprehensive genomic profiling of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate. Journal of Clinical Oncology 34(2_suppl): 187-187, 2020. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.34.2_suppl.187
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Pelosi G,
    2. Papotti M,
    3. Rindi G and
    4. Scarpa A
    : Unraveling tumor grading and genomic landscape in lung neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Pathol 25(2): 151-164, 2014. PMID: 24771462. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-014-9320-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Raymond E,
    2. Hobday T,
    3. Castellano D,
    4. Reidy-Lagunes D,
    5. García-Carbonero R and
    6. Carrato A
    : Therapy innovations: tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev 30 Suppl 1: 19-26, 2011. PMID: 21308478. DOI: 10.1007/s10555-011-9291-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yao JC,
    2. Pavel M,
    3. Lombard-Bohas C,
    4. Van Cutsem E,
    5. Voi M,
    6. Brandt U,
    7. He W,
    8. Chen D,
    9. Capdevila J,
    10. de Vries EGE,
    11. Tomassetti P,
    12. Hobday T,
    13. Pommier R and
    14. Öberg K
    : Everolimus for the treatment of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: overall survival and circulating biomarkers from the randomized, phase III RADIANT-3 study. J Clin Oncol 34(32): 3906-3913, 2016. PMID: 27621394. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.0702
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Geis C,
    2. Fendrich V,
    3. Rexin P,
    4. Di Fazio P,
    5. Bartsch DK,
    6. Ocker M,
    7. Quint K and
    8. Heverhagen AE
    : Ileal neuroendocrine tumors show elevated activation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex. J Surg Res 194(2): 388-393, 2015. PMID: 25439321. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.10.052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dardenne E,
    2. Beltran H,
    3. Benelli M,
    4. Gayvert K,
    5. Berger A,
    6. Puca L,
    7. Cyrta J,
    8. Sboner A,
    9. Noorzad Z,
    10. MacDonald T,
    11. Cheung C,
    12. Yuen KS,
    13. Gao D,
    14. Chen Y,
    15. Eilers M,
    16. Mosquera JM,
    17. Robinson BD,
    18. Elemento O,
    19. Rubin MA,
    20. Demichelis F and
    21. Rickman DS
    : N-Myc induces an EZH2-mediated transcriptional program driving neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 30(4): 563-577, 2016. PMID: 27728805. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.09.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fenner A
    : Prostate cancer: BRN2 is a neuroendocrine driver. Nat Rev Urol 14(1): 10, 2017. PMID: 27843142. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.237
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bishop JL,
    2. Thaper D,
    3. Vahid S,
    4. Davies A,
    5. Ketola K,
    6. Kuruma H,
    7. Jama R,
    8. Nip KM,
    9. Angeles A,
    10. Johnson F,
    11. Wyatt AW,
    12. Fazli L,
    13. Gleave ME,
    14. Lin D,
    15. Rubin MA,
    16. Collins CC,
    17. Wang Y,
    18. Beltran H and
    19. Zoubeidi A
    : The master neural transcription factor BRN2 is an androgen receptor-suppressed driver of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer. Cancer Discov 7(1): 54-71, 2017. PMID: 27784708. DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-1263
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Maxwell JE,
    2. Sherman SK and
    3. Howe JR
    : Translational diagnostics and therapeutics in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res 22(20): 5022-5029, 2016. PMID: 27742788. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0435
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Lyons YA,
    2. Frumovitz M and
    3. Soliman PT
    : Response to MEK inhibitor in small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix with a KRAS mutation. Gynecol Oncol Rep 10: 28-29, 2014. PMID: 26075998. DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2014.09.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Beltran H,
    2. Rickman DS,
    3. Park K,
    4. Chae SS,
    5. Sboner A,
    6. MacDonald TY,
    7. Wang Y,
    8. Sheikh KL,
    9. Terry S,
    10. Tagawa ST,
    11. Dhir R,
    12. Nelson JB,
    13. de la Taille A,
    14. Allory Y,
    15. Gerstein MB,
    16. Perner S,
    17. Pienta KJ,
    18. Chinnaiyan AM,
    19. Wang Y,
    20. Collins CC,
    21. Gleave ME,
    22. Demichelis F,
    23. Nanus DM and
    24. Rubin MA
    : Molecular characterization of neuroendocrine prostate cancer and identification of new drug targets. Cancer Discov 1(6): 487-495, 2011. PMID: 22389870. DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0130
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kidd M and
    2. Modlin IM
    : Therapy: The role of liquid biopsies to manage and predict PRRT for NETs. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(6): 331-332, 2017. PMID: 28293026. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.26
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Park C,
    2. Ha SY,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. Kim HC,
    5. Heo JS,
    6. Park YS,
    7. Lauwers G,
    8. Lee J and
    9. Kim KM
    : Identification of the BRAF V600E mutation in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Oncotarget 7(4): 4024-4035, 2016. PMID: 26684240. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.6602
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Akintola-Ogunremi O,
    2. Pfeifer JD,
    3. Tan BR,
    4. Yan Y,
    5. Zhu X,
    6. Hart J,
    7. Goldblum JR,
    8. Burgart L,
    9. Lauwers GY,
    10. Montgomery E,
    11. Lewin D,
    12. Washington K,
    13. Bronner M,
    14. Xiao SY,
    15. Greenson JK,
    16. Lamps L,
    17. Lazenby A and
    18. Wang HL
    : Analysis of protein expression and gene mutation of c-kit in colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 27(12): 1551-1558, 2003. PMID: 14657715. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200312000-00008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Srivastava A and
    2. Hornick JL
    : 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. Am J Surg Pathol 33(4): 626-632, 2009. PMID: 19065104. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31818d7d8b
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Freis P,
    2. Graillot E,
    3. Rousset P,
    4. Hervieu V,
    5. Chardon L,
    6. Lombard-Bohas C and
    7. Walter T
    : Prognostic factors in neuroendocrine carcinoma: biological markers are more useful than histomorphological markers. Sci Rep 7: 40609, 2017. PMID: 28074897. DOI: 10.1038/srep40609
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Kim JY and
    2. Hong SM
    : Recent updates on neuroendocrine tumors from the gastrointestinal and pancreatobiliary tracts. Arch Pathol Lab Med 140(5): 437-448, 2016. PMID: 27128301. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0314-RA
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Castro-Vega LJ,
    2. Letouzé E,
    3. Burnichon N,
    4. Buffet A,
    5. Disderot PH,
    6. Khalifa E,
    7. Loriot C,
    8. Elarouci N,
    9. Morin A,
    10. Menara M,
    11. Lepoutre-Lussey C,
    12. Badoual C,
    13. Sibony M,
    14. Dousset B,
    15. Libé R,
    16. Zinzindohoue F,
    17. Plouin PF,
    18. Bertherat J,
    19. Amar L,
    20. de Reyniès A,
    21. Favier J and
    22. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP
    : Multi-omics analysis defines core genomic alterations in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Nat Commun 6: 6044, 2015. PMID: 25625332. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7044
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fishbein L,
    2. Leshchiner I,
    3. Walter V,
    4. Danilova L,
    5. Robertson AG,
    6. Johnson AR,
    7. Lichtenberg TM,
    8. Murray BA,
    9. Ghayee HK,
    10. Else T,
    11. Ling S,
    12. Jefferys SR,
    13. de Cubas AA,
    14. Wenz B,
    15. Korpershoek E,
    16. Amelio AL,
    17. Makowski L,
    18. Rathmell WK,
    19. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP,
    20. Giordano TJ,
    21. Asa SL,
    22. Tischler AS,
    23. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Pacak K,
    24. Nathanson KL and
    25. Wilkerson MD
    : Comprehensive molecular characterization of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Cancer Cell 31(2): 181-193, 2017. PMID: 28162975. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.01.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fishbein L,
    2. Khare S,
    3. Wubbenhorst B,
    4. DeSloover D,
    5. D’Andrea K,
    6. Merrill S,
    7. Cho NW,
    8. Greenberg RA,
    9. Else T,
    10. Montone K,
    11. LiVolsi V,
    12. Fraker D,
    13. Daber R,
    14. Cohen DL and
    15. Nathanson KL
    : Whole-exome sequencing identifies somatic ATRX mutations in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Nat Commun 6: 6140, 2015. PMID: 25608029. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7140
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Sahnane N,
    2. Furlan D,
    3. Monti M,
    4. Romualdi C,
    5. Vanoli A,
    6. Vicari E,
    7. Solcia E,
    8. Capella C,
    9. Sessa F and
    10. La Rosa S
    : Microsatellite unstable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinomas: a new clinicopathologic entity. Endocr Relat Cancer 22(1): 35-45, 2015. PMID: 25465415. DOI: 10.1530/ERC-14-0410
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. Genomics of phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Nat Rev Endocrinol 11(4): 194-194, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2015.22
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Favier J,
    2. Amar L and
    3. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP
    : Paraganglioma and phaeochromocytoma: from genetics to personalized medicine. Nat Rev Endocrinol 11(2): 101-111, 2015. PMID: 25385035. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2014.188
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mosquera JM,
    2. Beltran H,
    3. Park K,
    4. MacDonald TY,
    5. Robinson BD,
    6. Tagawa ST,
    7. Perner S,
    8. Bismar TA,
    9. Erbersdobler A,
    10. Dhir R,
    11. Nelson JB,
    12. Nanus DM and
    13. Rubin MA
    : Concurrent AURKA and MYCN gene amplifications are harbingers of lethal treatment-related neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Neoplasia 15(1): 1-10, 2013. PMID: 23358695. DOI: 10.1593/neo.121550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Clegg N,
    2. Ferguson C,
    3. True LD,
    4. Arnold H,
    5. Moorman A,
    6. Quinn JE,
    7. Vessella RL and
    8. Nelson PS
    : Molecular characterization of prostatic small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Prostate 55(1): 55-64, 2003. PMID: 12640661. DOI: 10.1002/pros.10217
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hammond WA,
    2. Crozier JA,
    3. Nakhleh RE and
    4. Mody K
    : Genomic profiling of high-grade large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the colon. J Gastrointest Oncol 7(2): E22-E24, 2016. PMID: 27034803. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2015.090
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Miyoshi T,
    2. Umemura S,
    3. Matsumura Y,
    4. Mimaki S,
    5. Tada S,
    6. Makinoshima H,
    7. Ishii G,
    8. Udagawa H,
    9. Matsumoto S,
    10. Yoh K,
    11. Niho S,
    12. Ohmatsu H,
    13. Aokage K,
    14. Hishida T,
    15. Yoshida J,
    16. Nagai K,
    17. Goto K,
    18. Tsuboi M and
    19. Tsuchihara K
    : Genomic profiling of large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. Clin Cancer Res 23(3): 757-765, 2017. PMID: 27507618. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0355
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Backman S,
    2. Norlén O,
    3. Eriksson B,
    4. Skogseid B,
    5. Stålberg P and
    6. Crona J
    : Detection of somatic mutations in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors using targeted deep sequencing. Anticancer Res 37(2): 705-712, 2017. PMID: 28179320. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.11367
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Meeker A and
    2. Heaphy C
    : Gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumors. Mol Cell Endocrinol 386(1-2): 101-120, 2014. PMID: 23906538. DOI: 10.1016/j.mce.2013.07.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mapelli P,
    2. Aboagye EO,
    3. Stebbing J and
    4. Sharma R
    : Epigenetic changes in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Oncogene 34(34): 4439-4447, 2015. PMID: 25435371. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2014.379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Uri I and
    2. Grozinsky-Glasberg S
    : Current treatment strategies for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Clin Diabetes Endocrinol 4: 16, 2018. PMID: 30009041. DOI: 10.1186/s40842-018-0066-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee HS,
    2. Chen M,
    3. Kim JH,
    4. Kim WH,
    5. Ahn S,
    6. Maeng K,
    7. Allegra CJ,
    8. Kaye FJ,
    9. Hochwald SN and
    10. Zajac-Kaye M
    : Analysis of 320 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors identifies TS expression as independent biomarker for survival. Int J Cancer 135(1): 128-137, 2014. PMID: 24347111. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pinato DJ,
    2. Tan TM,
    3. Toussi ST,
    4. Ramachandran R,
    5. Martin N,
    6. Meeran K,
    7. Ngo N,
    8. Dina R and
    9. Sharma R
    : An expression signature of the angiogenic response in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours: correlation with tumour phenotype and survival outcomes. Br J Cancer 110(1): 115-122, 2014. PMID: 24231952. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.682
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Sangoi AR,
    2. Ohgami RS,
    3. Pai RK,
    4. Beck AH,
    5. McKenney JK and
    6. Pai RK
    : PAX8 expression reliably distinguishes pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors from ileal and pulmonary well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 24(3): 412-424, 2011. PMID: 20890270. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.176
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Andersson E,
    2. Arvidsson Y,
    3. Swärd C,
    4. Hofving T,
    5. Wängberg B,
    6. Kristiansson E and
    7. Nilsson O
    : Expression profiling of small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors identifies subgroups with clinical relevance, prognostic markers and therapeutic targets. Mod Pathol 29(6): 616-629, 2016. PMID: 26965582. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.48
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cohen PR,
    2. Tomson BN,
    3. Elkin SK,
    4. Marchlik E,
    5. Carter JL and
    6. Kurzrock R
    : Genomic portfolio of Merkel cell carcinoma as determined by comprehensive genomic profiling: implications for targeted therapeutics. Oncotarget 7(17): 23454-23467, 2016. PMID: 26981779. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Goh G,
    2. Walradt T,
    3. Markarov V,
    4. Blom A,
    5. Riaz N,
    6. Doumani R,
    7. Stafstrom K,
    8. Moshiri A,
    9. Yelistratova L,
    10. Levinsohn J,
    11. Chan TA,
    12. Nghiem P,
    13. Lifton RP and
    14. Choi J
    : Mutational landscape of MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative Merkel cell carcinomas with implications for immunotherapy. Oncotarget 7(3): 3403-3415, 2016. PMID: 26655088. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.6494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Busam KJ,
    2. Pulitzer MP,
    3. Coit DC,
    4. Arcila M,
    5. Leng D,
    6. Jungbluth AA and
    7. Wiesner T
    : Reduced H3K27me3 expression in Merkel cell polyoma virus-positive tumors. Mod Pathol 30(6): 877-883, 2017. PMID: 28281550. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2017.8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pulitzer MP,
    2. Brannon AR,
    3. Berger MF,
    4. Louis P,
    5. Scott SN,
    6. Jungbluth AA,
    7. Coit DG,
    8. Brownell I and
    9. Busam KJ
    : Cutaneous squamous and neuroendocrine carcinoma: genetically and immunohistochemically different from Merkel cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 28(8): 1023-1032, 2015. PMID: 26022453. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.60
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shen P,
    2. Jing Y,
    3. Zhang R,
    4. Cai MC,
    5. Ma P,
    6. Chen H and
    7. Zhuang G
    : Comprehensive genomic profiling of neuroendocrine bladder cancer pinpoints molecular origin and potential therapeutics. Oncogene 37(22): 3039-3044, 2018. PMID: 29535424. DOI: 10.1038/s41388-018-0192-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hiroshima K and
    2. Mino-Kenudson M
    : Update on large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Transl Lung Cancer Res 6(5): 530-539, 2017. PMID: 29114469. DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2017.06.12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Heilmann AM,
    2. Subbiah V,
    3. Wang K,
    4. Sun JX,
    5. Elvin JA,
    6. Chmielecki J,
    7. Sherman SI,
    8. Murthy R,
    9. Busaidy NL,
    10. Subbiah I,
    11. Yelensky R,
    12. Nangia C,
    13. Vergilio JA,
    14. Khan SA,
    15. Erlich RL,
    16. Lipson D,
    17. Ross JS,
    18. Miller VA,
    19. Shah MH,
    20. Ali SM and
    21. Stephens PJ
    : Comprehensive genomic profiling of clinically advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma. Oncology 90(6): 339-346, 2016. PMID: 27207748. DOI: 10.1159/000445978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mohanty SK,
    2. Kim SA,
    3. DeLair DF,
    4. Bose S,
    5. Laury AR,
    6. Chopra S,
    7. Mertens RB and
    8. Dhall D
    : Comparison of metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms to the breast and primary invasive mammary carcinomas with neuroendocrine differentiation. Mod Pathol 29(8): 788-798, 2016. PMID: 27125358. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.69
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kim J,
    2. Lee WJ,
    3. Lee SH,
    4. Lee KB,
    5. Ryu JK,
    6. Kim YT,
    7. Kim SW,
    8. Yoon YB,
    9. Hwang JH,
    10. Han HS,
    11. Woo SM and
    12. Park SJ
    : Clinical features of 20 patients with curatively resected biliary neuroendocrine tumours. Dig Liver Dis 43(12): 965-970, 2011. PMID: 21856258. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.07.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ozturk O,
    2. Bayraktar Y and
    3. Akyol A
    : Image of the month: a neuroendocrine tumor invading all portal venous system components. Am J Gastroenterol 111(3): 311, 2016. PMID: 27018107. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.308
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Bergsland E,
    2. Roy R,
    3. Stephens P,
    4. Ross J,
    5. Bailey M and
    6. Olshen A
    : Genomic profiling to distinguish poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas arising in different sites. Journal of Clinical Oncology 34(15_suppl): 4020-4020, 2019. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.4020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. García-Suárez O,
    2. García B,
    3. Fernández-Vega I,
    4. Astudillo A and
    5. Quirós LM
    : Neuroendocrine tumors show altered expression of chondroitin sulfate, glypican 1, glypican 5, and syndecan 2 depending on their differentiation grade. Front Oncol 4: 15, 2014. PMID: 24570896. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Banck MS and
    2. Beutler AS
    : Advances in small bowel neuroendocrine neoplasia. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 30(2): 163-167, 2014. PMID: 24441281. DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ross JS,
    2. Wang K,
    3. Elkadi OR,
    4. Tarasen A,
    5. Foulke L,
    6. Sheehan CE,
    7. Otto GA,
    8. Palmer G,
    9. Yelensky R,
    10. Lipson D,
    11. Chmielecki J,
    12. Ali SM,
    13. Elvin J,
    14. Morosini D,
    15. Miller VA and
    16. Stephens PJ
    : Next-generation sequencing reveals frequent consistent genomic alterations in small cell undifferentiated lung cancer. J Clin Pathol 67(9): 772-776, 2014. PMID: 24978188. DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202447
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. George J,
    2. Saito M,
    3. Tsuta K,
    4. Iwakawa R,
    5. Shiraishi K,
    6. Scheel AH,
    7. Uchida S,
    8. Watanabe SI,
    9. Nishikawa R,
    10. Noguchi M,
    11. Peifer M,
    12. Jang SJ,
    13. Petersen I,
    14. Büttner R,
    15. Harris CC,
    16. Yokota J,
    17. Thomas RK and
    18. Kohno T
    : Genomic amplification of CD274 (PD-L1) in small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23(5): 1220-1226, 2017. PMID: 27620277. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1069
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Nadal R,
    2. Schweizer M,
    3. Kryvenko ON,
    4. Epstein JI and
    5. Eisenberger MA
    : Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Nat Rev Urol 11(4): 213-219, 2014. PMID: 24535589. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2014.21
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jiao Y,
    2. Shi C,
    3. Edil BH,
    4. de Wilde RF,
    5. Klimstra DS,
    6. Maitra A,
    7. Schulick RD,
    8. Tang LH,
    9. Wolfgang CL,
    10. Choti MA,
    11. Velculescu VE,
    12. Diaz LA Jr.,
    13. Vogelstein B,
    14. Kinzler KW,
    15. Hruban RH and
    16. Papadopoulos N
    : DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Science 331(6021): 1199-1203, 2011. PMID: 21252315. DOI: 10.1126/science.1200609
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. George J,
    2. Lim JS,
    3. Jang SJ,
    4. Cun Y,
    5. Ozretić L,
    6. Kong G,
    7. Leenders F,
    8. Lu X,
    9. Fernández-Cuesta L,
    10. Bosco G,
    11. Müller C,
    12. Dahmen I,
    13. Jahchan NS,
    14. Park KS,
    15. Yang D,
    16. Karnezis AN,
    17. Vaka D,
    18. Torres A,
    19. Wang MS,
    20. Korbel JO,
    21. Menon R,
    22. Chun SM,
    23. Kim D,
    24. Wilkerson M,
    25. Hayes N,
    26. Engelmann D,
    27. Pützer B,
    28. Bos M,
    29. Michels S,
    30. Vlasic I,
    31. Seidel D,
    32. Pinther B,
    33. Schaub P,
    34. Becker C,
    35. Altmüller J,
    36. Yokota J,
    37. Kohno T,
    38. Iwakawa R,
    39. Tsuta K,
    40. Noguchi M,
    41. Muley T,
    42. Hoffmann H,
    43. Schnabel PA,
    44. Petersen I,
    45. Chen Y,
    46. Soltermann A,
    47. Tischler V,
    48. Choi CM,
    49. Kim YH,
    50. Massion PP,
    51. Zou Y,
    52. Jovanovic D,
    53. Kontic M,
    54. Wright GM,
    55. Russell PA,
    56. Solomon B,
    57. Koch I,
    58. Lindner M,
    59. Muscarella LA,
    60. la Torre A,
    61. Field JK,
    62. Jakopovic M,
    63. Knezevic J,
    64. Castaños-Vélez E,
    65. Roz L,
    66. Pastorino U,
    67. Brustugun OT,
    68. Lund-Iversen M,
    69. Thunnissen E,
    70. Köhler J,
    71. Schuler M,
    72. Botling J,
    73. Sandelin M,
    74. Sanchez-Cespedes M,
    75. Salvesen HB,
    76. Achter V,
    77. Lang U,
    78. Bogus M,
    79. Schneider PM,
    80. Zander T,
    81. Ansén S,
    82. Hallek M,
    83. Wolf J,
    84. Vingron M,
    85. Yatabe Y,
    86. Travis WD,
    87. Nürnberg P,
    88. Reinhardt C,
    89. Perner S,
    90. Heukamp L,
    91. Büttner R,
    92. Haas SA,
    93. Brambilla E,
    94. Peifer M,
    95. Sage J and
    96. Thomas RK
    : Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature 524(7563): 47-53, 2015. PMID: 26168399. DOI: 10.1038/nature14664
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Glenn ST,
    2. Jones CA,
    3. Sexton S,
    4. LeVea CM,
    5. Caraker SM,
    6. Hajduczok G and
    7. Gross KW
    : Conditional deletion of p53 and Rb in the renin-expressing compartment of the pancreas leads to a highly penetrant metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Oncogene 33(50): 5706-5715, 2014. PMID: 24292676. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2013.514
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. La Rosa S and
    2. Sessa F
    1. Reid MD,
    2. Akkas G,
    3. Basturk O and
    4. Adsay V
    : Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas. In: Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Practical approach to diagnosis, classification, and therapy. La Rosa S and Sessa F (eds.). Cham, Springer International Publishing, pp. 155-165, 2015.
    1. Jesinghaus M,
    2. Konukiewitz B,
    3. Keller G,
    4. Kloor M,
    5. Steiger K,
    6. Reiche M,
    7. Penzel R,
    8. Endris V,
    9. Arsenic R,
    10. Hermann G,
    11. Stenzinger A,
    12. Weichert W,
    13. Pfarr N and
    14. Klöppel G
    : Colorectal mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas and neuroendocrine carcinomas are genetically closely related to colorectal adenocarcinomas. Mod Pathol 30(4): 610-619, 2017. PMID: 28059096. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.220
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kleist B and
    2. Poetsch M
    : Neuroendocrine differentiation: The mysterious fellow of colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 21(41): 11740-11747, 2015. PMID: 26556999. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i41.11740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. La Rosa S,
    2. Sessa F and
    3. Uccella S
    : Mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs): Unifying the concept of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms. Endocr Pathol 27(4): 284-311, 2016. PMID: 27169712. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-016-9432-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. de Mestier L,
    2. Cros J,
    3. Neuzillet C,
    4. Hentic O,
    5. Egal A,
    6. Muller N,
    7. Bouché O,
    8. Cadiot G,
    9. Ruszniewski P,
    10. Couvelard A and
    11. Hammel P
    : Digestive system mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 105(4): 412-425, 2017. PMID: 28803232. DOI: 10.1159/000475527
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Pham QD,
    2. Mori I and
    3. Osamura RY
    : A case report: Gastric mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasm with aggressive neuroendocrine component. Case Rep Pathol 2017: 9871687, 2017. PMID: 28626594. DOI: 10.1155/2017/9871687
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Cen D,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Li Z,
    4. Zhao J and
    5. Cai X
    : Prognostic significance of cytokeratin 19 expression in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 12(11): e0187588, 2017. PMID: 29136022. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Klimstra DS,
    2. Modlin IR,
    3. Coppola D,
    4. Lloyd RV and
    5. Suster S
    : The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: a review of nomenclature, grading, and staging systems. Pancreas 39(6): 707-712, 2010. PMID: 20664470. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181ec124e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Scarpa A,
    2. Mantovani W,
    3. Capelli P,
    4. Beghelli S,
    5. Boninsegna L,
    6. Bettini R,
    7. Panzuto F,
    8. Pederzoli P,
    9. delle Fave G and
    10. Falconi M
    : Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients. Mod Pathol 23(6): 824-833, 2010. PMID: 20305616. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.58
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Vicentini C,
    2. Fassan M,
    3. D’Angelo E,
    4. Corbo V,
    5. Silvestris N,
    6. Nuovo GJ and
    7. Scarpa A
    : Clinical application of microRNA testing in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Molecules 19(2): 2458-2468, 2014. PMID: 24566314. DOI: 10.3390/molecules19022458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Kerr SE,
    2. Schnabel CA,
    3. Sullivan PS,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Huang VJ,
    6. Erlander MG,
    7. Brachtel EF and
    8. Dry SM
    : A 92-gene cancer classifier predicts the site of origin for neuroendocrine tumors. Mod Pathol 27(1): 44-54, 2014. PMID: 23846576. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Modlin IM,
    2. Kidd M,
    3. Bodei L,
    4. Drozdov I and
    5. Aslanian H
    : The clinical utility of a novel blood-based multi-transcriptome assay for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Gastroenterol 110(8): 1223-1232, 2015. PMID: 26032155. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Mairinger FD,
    2. Ting S,
    3. Werner R,
    4. Walter RF,
    5. Hager T,
    6. Vollbrecht C,
    7. Christoph D,
    8. Worm K,
    9. Mairinger T,
    10. Sheu-Grabellus SY,
    11. Theegarten D,
    12. Schmid KW and
    13. Wohlschlaeger J
    : Different micro-RNA expression profiles distinguish subtypes of neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: results of a profiling study. Mod Pathol 27(12): 1632-1640, 2014. PMID: 24875640. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.74
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Lee IS,
    3. Cho YK,
    4. Park JM,
    5. Kim SW,
    6. Choi MG,
    7. Choi KY,
    8. Lee MA,
    9. Hong TH,
    10. You YK and
    11. Jung ES
    : A case of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the common bile duct: initially diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma. Korean J Pathol 48(6): 445-448, 2014. PMID: 25588638. DOI: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.6.445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harada K,
    2. Sato Y,
    3. Ikeda H,
    4. Maylee H,
    5. Igarashi S,
    6. Okamura A,
    7. Masuda S and
    8. Nakanuma Y
    : Clinicopathologic study of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas of hepatobiliary organs. Virchows Arch 460(3): 281-289, 2012. PMID: 22358181. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-012-1212-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Priyanka Akhilesh S,
    2. Kamal Sunder Y,
    3. Chandralekha T,
    4. Samir P and
    5. Prasad Kashinath W
    : Common hepatic duct mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma masquerading as cholangiocarcinoma. Case Rep Gastrointest Med 2016: 4827050, 2016. PMID: 27375908. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4827050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Erlander MG,
    2. Ma XJ,
    3. Kesty NC,
    4. Bao L,
    5. Salunga R and
    6. Schnabel CA
    : Performance and clinical evaluation of the 92-gene real-time PCR assay for tumor classification. J Mol Diagn 13(5): 493-503, 2011. PMID: 21708287. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Le DT,
    2. Durham JN,
    3. Smith KN,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Bartlett BR,
    6. Aulakh LK,
    7. Lu S,
    8. Kemberling H,
    9. Wilt C,
    10. Luber BS,
    11. Wong F,
    12. Azad NS,
    13. Rucki AA,
    14. Laheru D,
    15. Donehower R,
    16. Zaheer A,
    17. Fisher GA,
    18. Crocenzi TS,
    19. Lee JJ,
    20. Greten TF,
    21. Duffy AG,
    22. Ciombor KK,
    23. Eyring AD,
    24. Lam BH,
    25. Joe A,
    26. Kang SP,
    27. Holdhoff M,
    28. Danilova L,
    29. Cope L,
    30. Meyer C,
    31. Zhou S,
    32. Goldberg RM,
    33. Armstrong DK,
    34. Bever KM,
    35. Fader AN,
    36. Taube J,
    37. Housseau F,
    38. Spetzler D,
    39. Xiao N,
    40. Pardoll DM,
    41. Papadopoulos N,
    42. Kinzler KW,
    43. Eshleman JR,
    44. Vogelstein B,
    45. Anders RA and
    46. Diaz LA Jr.
    : Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357(6349): 409-413, 2017. PMID: 28596308. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6733
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Lu KH,
    2. Wood ME,
    3. Daniels M,
    4. Burke C,
    5. Ford J,
    6. Kauff ND,
    7. Kohlmann W,
    8. Lindor NM,
    9. Mulvey TM,
    10. Robinson L,
    11. Rubinstein WS,
    12. Stoffel EM,
    13. Snyder C,
    14. Syngal S,
    15. Merrill JK,
    16. Wollins DS,
    17. Hughes KS and American Society of Clinical Oncology
    : American Society of Clinical Oncology Expert Statement: collection and use of a cancer family history for oncology providers. J Clin Oncol 32(8): 833-840, 2014. PMID: 24493721. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9257
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    Blocking β-catenin signalling – a future therapy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours? Nat Rev Endocrinol 11: 132, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2014.241
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Chan DL,
    2. Segelov E and
    3. Singh S
    : Everolimus in the management of metastatic neuroendocrine tumours. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 10(1): 132-141, 2017. PMID: 28286565. DOI: 10.1177/1756283X16674660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Faivre S,
    2. Niccoli P,
    3. Castellano D,
    4. Valle JW,
    5. Hammel P,
    6. Raoul JL,
    7. Vinik A,
    8. Van Cutsem E,
    9. Bang YJ,
    10. Lee SH,
    11. Borbath I,
    12. Lombard-Bohas C,
    13. Metrakos P,
    14. Smith D,
    15. Chen JS,
    16. Ruszniewski P,
    17. Seitz JF,
    18. Patyna S,
    19. Lu DR,
    20. Ishak KJ and
    21. Raymond E
    : Sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: updated progression-free survival and final overall survival from a phase III randomized study. Ann Oncol 28(2): 339-343, 2017. PMID: 27836885. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw561
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yao JC,
    2. Lombard-Bohas C,
    3. Baudin E,
    4. Kvols LK,
    5. Rougier P,
    6. Ruszniewski P,
    7. Hoosen S,
    8. St Peter J,
    9. Haas T,
    10. Lebwohl D,
    11. Van Cutsem E,
    12. Kulke MH,
    13. Hobday TJ,
    14. O’Dorisio TM,
    15. Shah MH,
    16. Cadiot G,
    17. Luppi G,
    18. Posey JA and
    19. Wiedenmann B
    : Daily oral everolimus activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 28(1): 69-76, 2010. PMID: 19933912. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2669
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Yao JC,
    2. Shah MH,
    3. Ito T,
    4. Bohas CL,
    5. Wolin EM,
    6. Van Cutsem E,
    7. Hobday TJ,
    8. Okusaka T,
    9. Capdevila J,
    10. de Vries EG,
    11. Tomassetti P,
    12. Pavel ME,
    13. Hoosen S,
    14. Haas T,
    15. Lincy J,
    16. Lebwohl D,
    17. Öberg K and RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial (RADIANT-3) Study Group
    : Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 364(6): 514-523, 2011. PMID: 21306238. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Falconi M and
    2. Partelli S
    : Neuroendocrine tumours in 2016: Defining rules for increasingly personalized treatments. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(2): 80-82, 2017. PMID: 27922042. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.197
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hutchinson L
    : Targeted therapies: Widening the treatment NET. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(1): 2-3, 2017. PMID: 27898066. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.198
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Capdevila J,
    2. Casanovas O,
    3. Salazar R,
    4. Castellano D,
    5. Segura A,
    6. Fuster P,
    7. Aller J,
    8. García-Carbonero R,
    9. Jimenez-Fonseca P,
    10. Grande E and
    11. Castaño JP
    : Translational research in neuroendocrine tumors: pitfalls and opportunities. Oncogene 36(14): 1899-1907, 2017. PMID: 27641330. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2016.316
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berardi R,
    2. Rinaldi S,
    3. Torniai M,
    4. Morgese F,
    5. Partelli S,
    6. Caramanti M,
    7. Onofri A,
    8. Polenta V,
    9. Pagliaretta S,
    10. Falconi M and
    11. Cascinu S
    : Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: Searching the optimal treatment strategy – A literature review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 98: 264-274, 2016. PMID: 26643525. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yoo C,
    2. Cho H,
    3. Song MJ,
    4. Hong SM,
    5. Kim KP,
    6. Chang HM,
    7. Chae H,
    8. Kim TW,
    9. Hong YS,
    10. Ryu MH,
    11. Kang YK,
    12. Kim SC and
    13. Ryoo BY
    : Efficacy and safety of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 79(1): 139-146, 2017. PMID: 27942928. DOI: 10.1007/s00280-016-3215-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rabinowits G
    : Systemic therapy for Merkel cell carcinoma: What’s on the horizon? Cancers (Basel) 6(2): 1180-1194, 2014. PMID: 24840048. DOI: 10.3390/cancers6021180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kannan A,
    2. Lin Z,
    3. Shao Q,
    4. Zhao S,
    5. Fang B,
    6. Moreno MA,
    7. Vural E,
    8. Stack BC Jr.,
    9. Suen JY,
    10. Kannan K and
    11. Gao L
    : Dual mTOR inhibitor MLN0128 suppresses Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) xenograft tumor growth. Oncotarget 7(6): 6576-6592, 2016. PMID: 26536665. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Dickson I
    : Pancreatic cancer: PanNETs elude elimination. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(6): 314-315, 2016. PMID: 27095652. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.67
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Fazio N and
    2. Milione M
    : Heterogeneity of grade 3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas: New insights and treatment implications. Cancer Treat Rev 50: 61-67, 2016. PMID: 27636009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.08.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Sidaway P
    : Prostate cancer: N-Myc expression drives neuroendocrine disease. Nat Rev Urol 13(12): 695, 2016. PMID: 27779225. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 42 (3)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 42, Issue 3
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Benefit of Gene Expression Profiling in Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors of Unknown Primary Origin
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Benefit of Gene Expression Profiling in Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors of Unknown Primary Origin
JAMES J. SALLER, MINTALLAH HAIDER, SAMEER AL-DIFFALHA, DOMENICO COPPOLA
Anticancer Research Mar 2022, 42 (3) 1381-1396; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15608

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Benefit of Gene Expression Profiling in Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors of Unknown Primary Origin
JAMES J. SALLER, MINTALLAH HAIDER, SAMEER AL-DIFFALHA, DOMENICO COPPOLA
Anticancer Research Mar 2022, 42 (3) 1381-1396; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15608
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Case Series Report
    • Patient 1
    • Patient 2
    • Patient 3
    • Patient 4
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of Postoperative Muscle Loss After Resection of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer on Surgical Outcomes
  • The Prognostic Relevance of Preoperative CEA and CA19-9 for Ampulla of Vater Carcinoma
  • Difference in the Overall Survival Between Malignant Central Airway Obstruction Patients Treated by Transbronchial Microwave Ablation and Stent Placement: A Single-institution Retrospective Study
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Cancer unknown primary
  • neuroendocrine
  • gene expression profiling
  • RT-PCR
Anticancer Research

© 2022 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire