Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with chronic gastritis without Helicobacter pylori infection

WOS: 000529401300002PubMed: 32343232Background/Aims: the association of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) with gastric malignancies has been proven by many studies in the literature. However, information about EBV-associated inflammation/gastritis remains limited. the aim of this study is to establish the prevalence of latent EBV infection in patients with chronic gastritis without H. pylori infection. Materials and Methods: in this study, 119 patients with gastritis without H. pylori infection were included. Furthermore, 28 patients with H. pylori gastritis were included in the study as a control group. Chromogenic in situ hybridization (EBV-encoded RNA) and immunohistochemistry (LMP-1 antibody) were performed in all 147 cases. the prevalence of EBV and its relationship with age, sex, the affected part of the stomach, the density of inflammation, inflammatory activity, intestinal metaplasia, and atrophy were analyzed. Results: in this study, 14 cases showed positive immunostaining for EBV. EBV positivity was seen mostly in the lymphoid tissue (13 cases), but it was also detected at the gastric epithelium (7 cases). the mean age of the patients was 44 years, which was slightly younger than that of the EBV-negative cases (48 years). the inflammation density was higher in EBV-positive cases than the EBV-negative gastritis cases (p=0.002). Intestinal metaplasia was detected in 7% of the cases. EBV-positive cases had a higher incidence of atrophy without intestinal metaplasia (21% vs 3.8% without EBV). Conclusion: EBV was detected in 12% of the cases with gastritis without H. pylori infection. Endoscopic follow-up may be appropriate for patients with gastritis, who have atrophy without intestinal metaplasia and are H. pylori negative but EBV positive

Comparison of World Health Organization 2000/2004 and World Health Organization 2010 classifications for gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs) were divided into 4 groups based on tumor diameter and stage in World Health Organization (WHO) 2000/2004 classification as well-differentiated endocrine tumor benign (WDETB), well-differentiated endocrine tumor with uncertain behavior (WDETUB), well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma (WDEC), and poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma (PDEC). World Health Organization 2000/2004 was not widely accepted because of stage-related classification and the category of "uncertain behavior." The European NET Society proposed a grading classification and site-specific staging system in 2010. Gastroenteropancreatic NETs were divided into 3 groups as NET grade 1 (G1), NET grade 2 (G2), and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) grade 3 (G3) based on mitoses and the Ki-67 index. We evaluated 63 GEPNET cases according to both classifications. We compared two classifications and the tumor groups in terms of prognostic parameters (diameter, mitosis, Ki-67 index, angioinvasion, perineural invasion, necrosis, and metastasis) and pathologic stage. All 14 cases diagnosed as PDEC were included in the NEC G3 according to WHO 2010. Seventeen cases were diagnosed as WDETB, 9 as WDETUB, and 23 as WDEC. There was statistically significant difference between these groups in terms of all prognostic parameters except for necrosis, mitosis, Ki-67 index, and grade. All WDETB cases, 89% of WDETUBs, and 87% of WDECs were included in the NET G1. There were 45 cases evaluated as NET G1 and 4 cases as NET G2 according to WHO 2010. Metastasis and perineural invasion were more common in NET G2, no significant differences in other parameters. In conclusion, WHO 2010 is easier to use, whereas WHO 2000/2004 shows higher correlation with prognosis. However, it includes benign and uncertain behavior categories, although small tumors with low proliferative activity can also cause metastases. All GEPNETs should be considered potentially malignant (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Primary breast carcinomas with neuroendocrine features: Clinicopathological features and analysis of tumor growth patterns in 36 cases

Primary breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine features (NEBC) is an uncommon tumor. In the classification of WHO 2012, these tumors were categorized as: 1- neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated; 2- neuroendocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated/small cell carcinoma; and 3- invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation. In this study, we reviewed NEBC except poorly differentiated/small cell carcinoma variant in order to define the morphological growth patterns and cytonuclear details of these tumors. All breast surgical excision materials between 2007 and 2016 were re-evaluated in terms of neuroendocrine differentiation. Thirty-six cases showing positive staining for synaptophysin and/or chromogranin A in >= 50% of tumor cells were included in the study. All cases were female with a mean age of 67.4. Mean tumor diameter was 26 mm. Multifocality was noted in 5 cases. Grossly, they were mostly infiltrative mass lesions. T stages, identified in 34 cases, were as follows: 13 cases with pTl; 19 pT2 and 2 pT3. We described schematically 4 types of patterns depending on predominant growth pattern, except one case: 1) Large-sized solid cohesive groups (6 cases), 2) Small- to medium-sized solid cohesive groups with trabeculae/ribbons and glandular structures (6 cases), 3) Mixed growth patterns (20 cases), 4) Invasive tumor with prominent extracellular and/or intracellular mucin (3 cases). The tumor cells were mostly polygonal-oval with eosinophilic/eosinophilic-granular cytoplasm. The nuclei of tumor cells were mostly round to oval with evenly distributed chromatin. Only 5 cases showed high grade nuclear and histological features. Molecular subtypes of the cases were as follows: 33 luminal A, 2 luminal B, and 1 triple negative. NEBC should come to mind when a tumor display one of the morphological patterns described above, composed of monotonous cells with mild to moderate nuclear pleomorphism and abundant eosinophilic/eosinophilic granular or clear cytoplasm, especially in elderly patients

Factors Impacting the Performance Characteristics of Bile Duct Brushings A Clinico-Cytopathologic Analysis of 253 Patients

Context.-Literature on factors impacting bile duct brushings (BDBs) performance characteristics remain limited

Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases

Diagnosing malignancy in bile duct brushings is highly challenging. Seven reviewers of variable backgrounds and levels of participation in bile duct brushing sign out blindly reviewed 60 specimens (30 malignant with histologic confirmation and 30 benign (15 stented) with resection or >= 18 months of uneventful follow-up), testing the utility of 14 malignant characteristics. Eleven characteristics were statistically significantly associated with malignancy including 3-dimensional clusters (63% in malignant vs 3% in benign, odds ratio 50, P=0.0003), pleomorphism (62 vs 3, odds ratio 48, P=0.0004), 2-cell population (60% vs 3, odds ratio 44, P=0.0005), chromatin pattern (hypo/hyperchromasia) changes (70% vs 7%, odds ratio 33, P= 3 malignant characteristics, while 23 (77%) benign brushings had none. Of 20 brushings with >= 4 characteristics, 1(5%) proved benign and showed detachment atypia, a close malignant mimicker in brushings. Identification of 3 characteristics maximized the combined sensitivity (70%), specificity (97%) and accuracy (83%), but sensitivity dropped as number of characteristics increased. Identification of 3/11 characteristics (3-dimensional clusters, pleomorphism, high nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, nuclear irregularity, hypercellularity, discohesion, chromatin changes, vacuoles, prominent nucleoli, molding and 2-cell population) improves pathologists' overall performance greatly

Evaluation and Pathologic Classification of Choledochal Cysts Clinicopathologic Analysis of 84 Cases From the West

Choledochal cyst (CC) is believed to be a mostly Asian disorder. As a clinically defined entity, its pathologic correlates are poorly characterized. Eighty-four resected CCs from the West were reanalyzed. After applying established Japanese criteria, 9/66 with available imaging were disqualified and 10/39 with preoperative cyst typing had to be recategorized. None had been diagnosed with, or evaluated for, pancreatobiliary maljunction, but on retrospective analysis of radiologic images, 12/66 were found to have pancreatobiliary maljunction. The clinical findings were: F/M=5.7; mean age, 48; most (77%) presented with abdominal pain; mean size, 2.9 cm; choledocholithiasis 11%. Gross/histologic examination revealed 3 distinct pathology-based categories: (I) Cystic dilatation of native ducts (81%). (II) Double bile duct (13%), almost all of which were found in women (10/11); all were diagnosed by pathologic examination, and not preoperative diagnosis. (III) Gastrointestinal (GI) duplication type (6%). Microscopic findings of the entire cohort included mucosal-predominant lymphoplasmacytic inflammation (50%), follicular cholangitis (7%), mucosal hyperplasia (43%; 13% with papillae), intestinal metaplasia (10%), BilIN-like hyperplasia (17%), erosion/ulceration (13%), and severe dysplasia-mimicking atypia including "detachment atypia" and micropapillary degeneration (11%). Carcinomatous changes were seen in 14 cases (17%) (high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ in 7, intraductal papillary neoplasm 1, and invasive carcinoma 6); and 13/14 of these occurred in pathologic category I, all with cyst size >1 cm. In conclusion, diagnostic imaging guidelines used in Asia are not routinely used (but should be adopted) in the West. Pathologically, cases designated as CC are classifiable in 3 groups: category 1 (dilated native duct type), more prone to carcinomatous change; category 2, double-duct phenomenon (all but 1 being female in this study); and category 3, GI-type duplication. Overall, 17% of CCs show carcinomatous change (50% of them invasive). CC specimens should be carefully examined with this classification and submitted entirely for assessment of at-risk mucosa and cancerous transformation

Immunohistochemical Classification of Ampullary Carcinomas: Critical Reappraisal Fails to Confirm Prognostic Relevance for Recently Proposed Panels, and Highlights MUC5AC as a Strong Prognosticator

Recently, immunohistochemistry-based classifications of ampullary carcinomas have been proposed (Ang and colleagues [PMID: 24832159]; Chang and colleagues [PMID: 23439753]). In this study, the prognostic value of Ang/Chang panel markers (CK20, MUC1, MUC2, CDX2) as well as other markers (CK7, MUC5AC, and MUC6) were tested on full-faced sections of 136 ampullary carcinoma resections with substantial (>5 mm) invasion. Immunohistochemistry was correlated with both histologic classification (intestinal [INT], pancreatobiliary [PB], or nontubular based on 3/5 observer agreement) and clinical outcome. No prognostic correlation was found with MUC1, CDX2, MUC2 or CK20 despite testing with different quantitative cutoffs. CK7 and CK20 were nonspecific. Ang classification had reasonable correlation with histologic subclassification of tubular cases as INT versus PB with high specificity but low sensitivity and ambiguous category was large (29%) and included also some classical cases. Prognostically, Ang classification approached but did not reach statistical significance, even when their large ambiguous group was eliminated and only tubular cases were analyzed (Ang-INT vs. Ang-PB; P=0.08). The Chang panel, in which the definition of the INT subcategory is not clearly defined, only marginally reached prognostic significance when tested as MUC1+/CDX2- versus MUC1-/CDX2+ and only by Wilcoxon test (P=0.0485) but 31% of the cases were unclassifiable. The only individual marker that was found to have direct and strong correlation with the clinical outcome was MUC5AC (not used in the Ang or Chang panels), with statistically significant survival differences found with various cutoffs tested (for 20% cutoff, 5-y survival, 68% vs. 31%; P=0.0002). In addition, MUC5AC significantly stratified the histologically PB and INT cases (P=0.01 and 0.03, respectively), as well as Ang's ambiguous and Chang's unclassified cases (P=0.006 and 0.007, respectively). In conclusion, the widely used putative lineage markers, MUC1/MUC2/CK7/CK20/CDX2, do not seem to have direct/significant prognostic correlation either individually or in combination of Ang and Chang panels. Ang panel is helpful as an adjunct in determining the cell lineage with a few caveats. MUC5AC proves to be a significant independent prognosticator and should be incorporated into evaluation of ampullary carcinomas