Our results show there are large differences in GEP-NETs between Japan and Western nations, primarily due to differences in the presence of MEN-1 in NF-PETs and the location, symptomatic status, and prevalence of malignancy in GI-NETs.

Background Although neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, the number of patients with NET is increasing. However, in Japan, there have been no epidemiological studies on NET since 2005; thus, the prevalence of NET remains unknown. Methods We reported the epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) [pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs)] in Japan in 2005. Here, we conducted the second nationwide survey on patients with GEP-NETs who received treatment in 2010. Results A total of 3,379 patients received treatment for PNETs in 2010, representing a 1.2-fold increase in the number of patients from 2005 to 2010. The prevalence was estimated to be 2.69/100,000, with an annual onset incidence of 1.27/100,000 in 2010. Non-functioning tumor (NF)-PNETs comprised 65.5 % of cases followed by insulinoma (20.9 %) and gastrinoma (8.2 %). Interestingly, the number of patients with NF-PNETs increased *1.8 fold since 2005. A total of 19.9 % of patients exhibited distant metastasis at initial diagnosis; 4.3 % had complications with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1), and only 4.0 % had NF-PNETs associated with MEN-1. Meanwhile, an estimated 8,088 patients received treatment for GI-NETs, representing a *1.8-fold increase since 2005. The prevalence was estimated to be 6.42/100,000, with an annual onset incidence of 3.51/100,000. The locations of GI-NETs varied: foregut, 26.1 %; midgut, 3.6 %; and hindgut, 70.3 %. Distant metastasis and complications with MEN-1 were observed in 6.0 and 0.42 % at initial diagnosis, respectively. The frequency of carcinoid syndrome in patients with GI-NETs was 3.2 %. Conclusion We clarified the epidemiological changes in GEP-NETs from 2005 to 2010 in Japan.

From a clinical standpoint, it is quite important to differentiate morphological type in CNFPAs to aid the clinician in assessing the clinical behavior and prognosis of the tumor. Therefore, we suggest that all CNFPAs be examined not only by conventional light microscopy but also by immunohistochemistry, preferably by electron microscopy, to achieve a correct morphological diagnosis.

Objective: Somatotropinomae are classified as densely and sparsely granulated adenomae, which typically exhibit a perinuclear pattern (PP) and a dot pattern (DP) in cytokeratin (CK) immunostaining respectively. Some exhibit a mixed pattern (MP). We studied the relationship between these somatotropinoma subtypes and their clinico-pathological features. Methods: The study population consisted of 141 Japanese acromegalic patients. We evaluated their clinical presentation and their response to provocation tests with TRH and LHRH and to suppression (octreotide) test. Tumour tissues were subjected to immunostaining for CAM-5.2, MIB-1, CD34, E-cadherin (CDH1) and p53 (TP53). In 43 cases (30 non-DP and 13 DP), we analysed gsp mutations (constitutively activating mutations of the G s a protein that is encoded by GNAS gene). Results: The 141 adenomae were categorised into three subtypes based on their CK staining patterns; 30 (21.3%) exhibited DP, 83 (58.9%) exhibited PP, and 28 (19.9%) exhibited MP. Compared with the other subtypes, DP adenomae were significantly larger, and their E-cadherin expression and response to TRH, LHRH and octreotide challenge were lower. The postoperative cure rate tended to be lower in DP adenomae. gsp mutations were detected in 25 of 43 cases examined (58.1%); 20 of the 30 non-DP (66.7%) and 5 of the 13 DP tumours (38.5%) were affected by the mutation. Conclusion: DP somatotropinomae exhibit characteristic features. Compared with the non-DP subtypes, DP adenomae manifested a larger tumour size, a lower incidence of abnormal responses to TRH and LHRH challenge, a poor response to octreotide test and a lower expression of E-cadherin. gsp mutation was not exclusive for non-DP somatotropinomae.

No abstract