Retrospective study on mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms from five European centres.

BACKGROUND: Mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN) is a rare diagnosis, mainly encountered in the gastro-entero-pancreatic tract. There is limited knowledge of its epidemiology, prognosis and biology, and the best management for affected patients is still to be defined. AIM: To investigate clinical-pathological characteristics, treatment modalities and survival outcomes of a retrospective cohort of patients with a diagnosis of MiNEN. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of MiNEN were identified at 5 European centres. Patient data were retrospectively collected from medical records. Pathological samples were reviewed to ascertain compliance with the 2017 World Health Organisation definition of MiNEN. Tumour responses to systemic treatment were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1. Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied to estimate survival outcomes. Associations between clinical-pathological characteristics and survival outcomes were explored using Log-rank test for equality of survivors functions (univariate) and Cox-regression analysis (multivariable). RESULTS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients identified; Median age at diagnosis: 64 years. Males: 63.8%. Localised disease (curable): 53.6%. Commonest sites of origin: colon-rectum (43.5%) and oesophagus/oesophagogastric junction (15.9%). The neuroendocrine component was; predominant in 58.6%, poorly differentiated in 86.3%, and large cell in 81.25%, of cases analysed. Most distant metastases analysed (73.4%) were occupied only by a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine component. Ninety-four percent of patients with localised disease underwent curative surgery; 53% also received perioperative treatment, most often in line with protocols for adenocarcinomas from the same sites of origin. Chemotherapy was offered to most patients (68.1%) with advanced disease, and followed protocols for pure neuroendocrine carcinomas or adenocarcinomas in equal proportion. In localised cases, median recurrence free survival (RFS); 14.0 mo (95%CI: 9.2-24.4), and median overall survival (OS): 28.6 mo (95%CI: 18.3-41.1). On univariate analysis, receipt of perioperative treatment (vs surgery alone) did not improve RFS (P = 0.375), or OS (P = 0.240). In advanced cases, median progression free survival (PFS); 5.6 mo (95%CI: 4.4-7.4), and median OS; 9.0 mo (95%CI: 5.2-13.4). On univariate analysis, receipt of palliative active treatment (vs best supportive care) prolonged PFS and OS (both, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MiNEN is most commonly driven by a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine component, and has poor prognosis. Advances in its biological understanding are needed to identify effective treatments and improve patient outcomes.

Competitive Testing of the WHO 2010 versus the WHO 2017 Grading of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Data from a Large International Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) modified the grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms from a three-tier (WHO-AJCC 2010) to a four-tier system by introducing the novel category of NET G3 (WHO-AJCC 2017). OBJECTIVES: This study aims at validating the WHO-AJCC 2017 and identifying the most effective grading system. METHOD: A total of 2,102 patients were enrolled; entry criteria were: (i) patient underwent surgery; (ii) at least 2 years of follow-up; (iii) observation time up to 2015. Data from 34 variables were collected; grading was assessed and compared for efficacy by statistical means including Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression analysis, Harrell's C statistics, and Royston's explained variation in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In descriptive analysis, the two grading systems demonstrated statistically significant differences for the major category sex but not for age groups. In Cox regression analysis, both grading systems showed statistically significant differences between grades for OS and EFS; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two G3 classes of WHO-AJCC 2017. In multivariable analysis for the two models fitted to compare efficacy, the two grading systems performed equally well with substantially similar optimal discrimination and well-explained variation for both OS and EFS. The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system retained statistically significant difference between the two G3 classes for OS but not for EFS. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO-AJCC 2017 grading system is at least equally performing as the WHO-AJCC 2010 but allows the successful identification of the most aggressive PanNET subgroup. Grading is confirmed as probably the most powerful tool for predicting patient survival.

Endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase-1 act independently in liver ischemic preconditioning.

BACKGROUND: ischemic preconditioning (IPC) protects against liver ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury. The mechanism involves nitric oxide metabolism but the importance of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) has not been established. Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) protects against liver IR but it is unclear if this depends on nitric oxide synthase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mouse model of IPC with liver IR using wild-type (WT) and eNOS transgenic knockout (eNOS-/-) mice was developed to study the role of eNOS and its relationship to HO-1. Serum alanine aminotransferase level, liver histopathologic injury scores, and liver microcirculatory blood flow were measured. Western blots measured liver HO-1/2, eNOS, phosphorylated eNOS, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (HO-1). A set of 24-h recovery experiments was undertaken on WT mice with measurement of serum alanine aminotransferase level, histologic injury score, and HO-1 by Western blot. RESULTS: In WT animals, IPC preceding IR resulted in a reduction in hepatocellular and histologic injury, and improvement in parenchymal perfusion. In contrast, IPC in the eNOS-/- model did not protect the animals from IR injury. There was no difference between the eNOS and phosphorylated eNOS expression in all the WT groups. HO-1 protein was not detected in the nonrecovery groups but HO-1 messenger RNA was detected in all groups. In WT recovery experiments, IPC was protective against IR injury. HO-1 protein was detected in the IPC + IR and IR only groups but not in the sham group. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and used an eNOS-/- model to demonstrate that eNOS mediates protection against liver IR injury by IPC. The eNOS expression and activity and HO-1 expression are increased independently in liver IPC and IR, with HO-1 expression increased in the later stages of IPC and IR.