The need for standards in the management of patients with endocrine tumors of the digestive system prompted the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) to organize a first Consensus Conference, which was held in Frascati (Rome) and was based on the recently published ENETS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Here, we report the tumor-node-metastasis proposal for foregut NETs of the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas that was designed, discussed, and consensually approved at this conference. In addition, we report the proposal for a working formulation for the grading of digestive NETs based on mitotic count and Ki-67 index. This proposal, which needs to be validated, is meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment, and follow-up of patients.

Criteria for the staging and grading of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of midgut and hindgut origin were established at the second Consensus Conference in Frascati (Rome) organized by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS). The proposed tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classifications are based on the recently published ENETS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of gastroenteropancreatic NETs and follow our previous proposal for foregut tumors. The new TNM classifications for NETs of the ileum, appendix, colon, and rectum, and the grading system were designed, discussed, and consensually approved by all conference participants. These proposals need to be validated and are meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment and follow-up of patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Background Phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas are neuro-endocrine tumours that occur sporadically and in several hereditary tumour syndromes, including the phaeochromocytoma–paraganglioma syndrome. This syndrome is caused by germline mutations in succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB), C (SDHC), or D (SDHD) genes. Clinically, the phaeochromocytoma–paraganglioma syndrome is often unrecognised, although 10–30% of apparently sporadic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas harbour germline SDH-gene mutations. Despite these figures, the screening of phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas for mutations in the SDH genes to detect phaeochromocytoma–paraganglioma syndrome is rarely done because of time and financial constraints. We investigated whether SDHB immunohistochemistry could effectively discriminate between SDH-related and non-SDH-related phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas in large retrospective and prospective tumour series. Methods Immunohistochemistry for SDHB was done on 220 tumours. Two retrospective series of 175 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with known germline mutation status for phaeochromocytoma-susceptibility or paraganglioma-susceptibility genes were investigated. Additionally, a prospective series of 45 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas was investigated for SDHB immunostaining followed by SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD mutation testing. Findings SDHB protein expression was absent in all 102 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with an SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD mutation, but was present in all 65 paraganglionic tumours related to multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, von Hippel–Lindau disease, and neurofibromatosis type 1. 47 (89%) of the 53 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with no syndromic germline mutation showed SDHB expression. The sensitivity and specificity of the SDHB immunohistochemistry to detect the presence of an SDH mutation in the prospective series were 100% (95% CI 87–100) and 84% (60–97), respectively. Interpretation Phaeochromocytoma–paraganglioma syndrome can be diagnosed reliably by an immunohistochemical procedure. SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD germline mutation testing is indicated only in patients with SDHB-negative tumours. SDHB immunohistochemistry on phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas could improve the diagnosis of phaeochromocytoma–paraganglioma syndrome.