01.01.2015 Views

Annals of Diagnostic Paediatric Pathology

Annals of Diagnostic Paediatric Pathology

Annals of Diagnostic Paediatric Pathology

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

80<br />

Fig. 11 International Neuroblastoma <strong>Pathology</strong> Classification (INPC) (revised form). Morphological and prognostic categories. FH: favorable histology; UH:<br />

unfavorable histology; GNBn: ganglioneuroblastoma, nodular; MKI: mitosis-karyorrhexis index. The prognostic categorization <strong>of</strong> GNBn is performed by<br />

evaluating the neuroblastomatous component in the nodule(s) according to the criteria for neuroblastomas (modified from Peuchmaur et al., 2003).<br />

Microscopical evaluation. The pathologist should not only<br />

analyze morphology and MKI for the histoprognostic classification,<br />

but also use the microscope for estimation <strong>of</strong> the tumor<br />

cell content in the material designed for biological investigations.<br />

Thus, microscoping a paraffin section from the tissue<br />

sample which was used for imprinting prior to fixation,<br />

will provide important information about the possible percentage<br />

<strong>of</strong> tumor cells, non-tumor cells (e.g. lymphocytes or<br />

stroma) and necrosis which might influence the representativity<br />

<strong>of</strong> the imprint. A microscopic analysis <strong>of</strong> the tumor cell content<br />

performed on frozen sections from the material which is<br />

intended to be used e.g. for PCR <strong>of</strong> the 1p36.3 region, is even<br />

more demanded because the correct interpretation <strong>of</strong> the PCR<br />

result requires a tumor cell content <strong>of</strong> at least 70%.<br />

It is obvious that the pathologist who is in charge <strong>of</strong><br />

handling samples from neuroblastic tumors, plays a central<br />

role in providing adequate material for biological analyses.<br />

Prognostic categorization by INPC and biological<br />

markers – competing or complementary systems<br />

It has been known for many years that MYCN amplification<br />

in neuroblastomas is a strong indicator <strong>of</strong> aggressive tumor<br />

behavior [4], and <strong>of</strong>ten associated with undifferentiated morphology<br />

and increased MKI [27]. One might therefore be<br />

tempted to ask whether the histoprognostic categorization provided<br />

by the INPC could be replaced by the analysis <strong>of</strong> MYCN.<br />

The correlation between INPC categorization and<br />

MYCN status was investigated by Goto et al. [8] in a large<br />

cohort <strong>of</strong> 628 patients with neuroblastic tumors. As expected,<br />

97,7% <strong>of</strong> tumors with favorable histology (FH) were MYCN<br />

non-amplified, while 93,2% <strong>of</strong> MYCN amplified tumors<br />

showed an unfavorable histology (UH). However, the comparison<br />

<strong>of</strong> MYCN status and INPC categories revealed a third<br />

and surprisingly large group <strong>of</strong> tumors with UH but without<br />

MYCN amplification. As shown in Fig. 12, the prognosis <strong>of</strong><br />

this group was intermediate to FH/non-amplified and UH/<br />

amplified tumors, and the difference in EFS between all three<br />

groups was statistically significant.<br />

The majority <strong>of</strong> UH, non-amplified tumors were observed<br />

at stage 3 and 4 in children older than one year. The<br />

results <strong>of</strong> this investigation demonstrate that the<br />

histoprognostic INPC categorization is able to identify a substantial<br />

number <strong>of</strong> patients who, in spite <strong>of</strong> normal MYCN<br />

status, belong to a group <strong>of</strong> inferior prognosis, and it appears<br />

relevant to ask whether this category <strong>of</strong> patients should be<br />

<strong>of</strong>fered a modified form <strong>of</strong> therapy.<br />

Further support to this notion comes from the recently<br />

completed histopathological review <strong>of</strong> 124 stage 2A and 2B<br />

MYCN non-amplified trial patients who were treated with<br />

surgery alone according to the LNESG (Localised Neuroblastoma<br />

European Study Group) protocol 94.01 (Navarro et al.,<br />

in preparation). The review was performed according to the<br />

INPC by the seven members <strong>of</strong> the SIOP European Neuroblastoma<br />

(SIOPEN) <strong>Pathology</strong> Reference Panel (Gabriele<br />

Amann, Klaus Beiske, Catherine Cullinane, Emanuele<br />

D’Amore, Claudio Gambini, Sam Navarro, Michel<br />

Peuchmaur), and assigned 20% <strong>of</strong> these MYCN-negative tumors<br />

to the unfavorable category. The difference in event free<br />

and overall survival between the favorable and unfavorable<br />

subset was statistically significant and underlines the importance<br />

<strong>of</strong> the INPC as a valuable tool for prognostic categorization<br />

<strong>of</strong> localized, MYCN non-amplified tumors.<br />

In the forthcoming LNESG2 study, these results have<br />

already influenced the therapeutic design in case <strong>of</strong> relapse <strong>of</strong><br />

the localized tumor. It has been decided that the relapse will

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!