4.5 Article

CD56 Expression Is Associated with Biological Behavior of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Journal

CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 4625-4631

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S250071

Keywords

pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm; grade; pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma; CD56

Categories

Funding

  1. Primary Research & Development Plan of Jiangsu Province [BE2017772]
  2. Zhejiang Medical Science and Technology Project [2017KY331]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: CD56 is a neural cell adhesion molecule that plays a role in the cohesiveness of neuroendocrine cells. The aim of this study was to explore the biological values of CD56 expression in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) and its role in predicting PNENs grades. Patients and Methods: A total of 138 patients with histological-proven PNENs was included (66 G1, 46 G2 and 26 G3). The clinicopathological characteristics, including mitosis count, ki67 index, chromogranin A (CgA), synaptophysin (Syn) and CD56 expression, were evaluated. We assessed the diagnostic performance of markers in predicting PNEN G3 and the association between CD56 expression and risk of G3 or organs invasion. Results: Lack of CD56 immunoreaction (CD56-) was more common in PNEN G3 than G1/G2 (31% vs 0-2%, p < 0.01). The sizes of CD56- tumors were larger than CD56 positive tumors in PNEN G3 (p < 0.01). The odds ratio (OR) of CD56- expression was 13.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-88.1] in predicting PNEN G3. The OR of CD56- expression was 6.5 (95% CI: 1.1-38.6) and 31.9 (95% CI: 1.09-938.3) in predicting organs invasion and neuroendocrine carcinoma in PNEN G3, respectively. Tumor size (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.77 and size+CD56- expression [AUC = 0.84]) had acceptable performance in predicating PNEN G3. Conclusion: Lack of CD56 immunoreaction may be a predictor and biological behavior marker for PNEN G3.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available