Prognostic value of histological grading in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas
- 42 Downloads
A new histological grading system with prognostic correlation for pancreatic cancer was proposed by Klöppel et al. in 1985. Histological sections from 60 ductal adenocarcinomas operated on between January 1980 and December 1990 were retrospectively reviewed in order to compare Klöppel's grading with standard TNM's grading and assess their prognostic value. Klöppel grading was determined through the following histologic and cytologic factors: number duct-like structures, mucus production, neoplastic epithelium, arrangement and pleomorphism of nuclei, and mitotic activity. A score from 0 (well differentiated) to 2 (poorly differentiated) was given to each factor. The mean value obtained dividing the sum of the different values by the number of parameters was used to construct a malignancy scale and therefore allocate each patient to his Klöppel grading. The concordance index K between the two grading systems was relevant (K=0.85p<0.001). There was no relation either between gradings (Klöppel or TNM) and preoperative duration of symptoms or between gradings and UICC stages. TNM's G2 grades of malignancy, N status, and tumor stage were significantly related to survival time (p<0.05). Klöppel's grading does not show any advantage over the classical and simpler TNM's grading, even though it can be considered more objective and therefore more easily reproducible. This characteristic further should be enhanced by the introduction of a malignancy scale such as the “mean value”.
Key WordsExocrine pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological factors neoplasm staging prognosis tumor grading
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Lack EE, Khettry U, Legg MA. The pancreas and extraepatic biliary system, inPrinciples and Practice of Surgical Pathology. Silverberg SG, ed., Churchill-Livingstone, 1990; 1347–1395.Google Scholar
- 2.Williamson RCN. Pancreatic cancer: the greatest oncological challenge.BJM 1988; 296: 445,446.Google Scholar
- 4.Klöppel G, Lingenthal G, Von Bolow M, Kern HF. Histological and fine structure features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in relation to growth and prognosis: studies in xenografted tumours and clinico-histopathological correlation in a series of 75 cases.Histopathology 1985; 9: 841–856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hermanek P, Sobin LH.UICC Classification of Malignant Tumors. 4th ed., Springer, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
- 6.Mannel A, Weiland LH, Van Heerden JA, Ilstrup DM. Factors influencing survival after resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.Ann Surg 1987; 206: 366–373.Google Scholar
- 15.Dixon WJ, Brown MB, Engelman L, Hill MA, Jennrich RI. BMDP.Statistical Software Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
- 35.Farir WR, Fuks ZY, Scher HI. Cancer of the bladder, inCancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Vincent T De Vita, ed., JB Lippincott, 1993; 1052–1072.Google Scholar
- 36.Weger AR, Falkmer UG, Schwab G, Glaser K, Kemmler G, Bodner E, Aver GV, Mikuz G. Nuclear DNA distribution pattern of the parenchymal cells in adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and in chronic pancreatitis. A study of archival specimens using both image and flow cytometry.Gastroenterology 1990; 99: 237–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Lack EE. Primary tumors of the exocrine pancreas. Classification overview and recent contributions by immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy.Am J Surg Pathol 1989; 13 (Suppl 1): 6–68.Google Scholar