Canine neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: a study using image analysis techniques for the discrimination of metastatic versus nonmetastatic tumors

Do Canine Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Resemble Human Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours? A Comparative Morphological and Immunohistochemical Investigation

Although canine pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) have been proposed as a model for the counterpart human neoplasms, the type or grade of human PanNEN that they resemble is unclear. PanNENs in animals are classified as adenoma or carcinoma, whereas in humans they are classified as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PanNET) if well-differentiated, or as pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (PanNEC) if poorly differentiated. We evaluated 16 canine primary PanNENs and two metastases histologically and immunohistochemically, and graded them using the animal and human grading systems. All neoplasms had local or vascular invasion and were classified as pancreatic islet cell carcinomas according to the current WHO classification. The Ki-67 index was low in all cases (0.01-1.50%). All had cytoplasmic expression of synaptophysin and insulin but were immunonegative for glucagon, confirming a functional diagnosis of canine insulinoma. Membranous expression of SSTR2A and nuclear expression of ATRX, but no p53 expression, was found in all neoplasms. One primary tumour was diagnosed as a mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm, which is the first report of this neoplasm in dogs. The other 15 primary tumours and both metastatic tumours were graded as PanNET G1, according to the human WHO classification. We conclude that canine PanNENs share well-differentiated histomorphology, SSTR2A expression and absence of nuclear p53 immunolabelling with human PanNETs G1. However, they differ in ATRX gene expression and functionality, and seem to have a worse prognosis than human PanNETs G1, although their generally low Ki-67 index precludes more precise assessment of prognosis. Membranous SSTR2A expression renders canine PanNENs potentially amenable to treatment with somatostatin analogues or SSTR targeted in-vivo imaging methods.

Prognostic and predictive markers in canine tumours: rationale and relevance. A review

Cancer is one of the most common causes of death in dogs. The availability of multiple treatment modalities and novel therapeutic targets make the correct diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and the identification of treatment effect predictive factors an issue of major debate in cancer management. Selection of high and low risk patients and the type of systemic or local treatment is important in cancer management. The search for better prognostic markers and predictive factors is now focused on the molecular mechanisms which underlie tumour behaviour, such as altered cell cycle progression, proliferation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis. The ultimate goal is to identify reliable markers that can accurately diagnose and stage a tumour and predict tumour's clinical behaviour, prognosis and response to therapy. In this review, the current state of prognostication in canine tumours and promising new molecular markers are discussed. The markers are allocated to four groups according to their function: (i) proliferation markers, (ii) apoptosis, (iii) extracellular matrix and cell adhesion molecules, (iv) angiogenesis and (v) cell cycle regulators. Clinicopathological factors and histopathological grading remain the most practical parameters in decision-making. Although experimental research has shown that molecular markers have a good potential to be used as diagnostic, prognostic or predictive markers in canine tumours, insufficient evidence exists on their efficacy for routine use in veterinary oncology.

Prognostic value of histopathological grading in canine extramedullary plasmacytomas

The canine extramedullary plasmacytoma (cEMP) has recently been the subject of numerous investigations, indicating that the histomorphologic diagnosis is often difficult because of the variety of morphologic features. Therefore, the objective of this study was to establish a subclassification scheme for cEMPs and to evaluate correlations between the types and malignancy. Retrospectively, 117 cEMPs, all immunohistochemically characterized by a monoclonal immunoglobulin light-chain expression, were collected and assigned to morphologic types. These types were compared using data from a follow-up study on metastasis and tumor recurrence, then compared by proliferation rate, determined by immunohistochemical detection of the antigen Ki-67. Histopathologic typing revealed five different types of cEMPs, ranging from the mature type with typical plasma cells to the polymorphous-blastic type. Between these two forms, three additional types were established: hyaline, cleaved, and asynchronous. Most of the cEMPs were of the cleaved and asynchronous types. In all cEMPs, mononuclear and multinuclear giant cells were present to varying degrees. Although the results of cell proliferation and the follow-up study indicated less benign behavior by the polymorphous-blastic type, the proliferation rate revealed no statistically significant differences among the cEMP types. The clinical data therefore confirmed previous findings that the risk of tumor recurrence and metastasis in general can be classed as low. The established cEMP typing system is probably a very helpful diagnostic tool, although the types cannot be used for a tumor grading system.