Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) arise in most organs of the body and share many common pathologic features. However, a variety of different organ-specific systems have been developed for nomenclature, grading, and staging of NETs, causing much confusion. This review examines issues in the pathologic assessment of NETs that are common among primaries of different sites. The various systems of nomenclature are compared along with new proposal for grading and staging NETs. Although differences persist, there are many common themes, such as the distinction of well-differentiated (low and intermediate-grade) from poorly differentiated (high-grade) NETs and the significance of proliferative rate in prognostic assessment. A recently published minimum pathology data set is presented to help standardize the information in pathology reports. Although an ultimate goal of standardizing the pathologic classification of all NETs, irrespective of primary site, remains elusive, an understanding of the common themes among the different current systems will permit easier translation of information relevant to prognosis and treatment.

Epithelial neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have been the subject of much debate regarding their optimal classification. Although multiple systems of nomenclature, grading, and staging have been proposed, none has achieved universal acceptance. To help define the underlying common features of these classification systems and to identify the minimal pathology data that should be reported to ensure consistent clinical management and reproducibility of data from therapeutic trials, a multidisciplinary team of physicians interested in NETs was assembled. At a group meeting, the participants discussed a series of "yes" or "no" questions related to the pathology of NETs and the minimal data to be included in the reports. After discussion, anonymous votes were taken, using the Delphic principle that 80% agreement on a vote of either yes or no would define a consensus. Questions that failed to achieve a consensus were rephrased once or twice and discussed, and additional votes were taken. Of 108 questions, 91 were answerable either yes or no by more than 80% of the participants. There was agreement about the importance of proliferation rate for tumor grading, the landmarks to use for staging, the prognostic factors assessable by routine histology that should be reported, the potential for tumors to progress biologically with metastasis, and the current status of advanced immunohistochemical and molecular testing for treatment-related biomarkers. The lack of utility of a variety of immunohistochemical stains and pathologic findings was also agreed upon. A consensus could not be reached for the remaining 17 questions, which included both minor points related to extent of disease assessment and some major areas such as terminology, routine immunohistochemical staining for general neuroendocrine markers, use of Ki67 staining to assess proliferation, and the relationship of tumor grade to degree of differentiation. On the basis of the results of the Delphic voting, a minimum pathology data set was developed. Although there remains disagreement among experts about the specific classification system that should be used, there is agreement about the fundamental pathology data that should be reported. Examination of the areas of disagreement reveals significant opportunities for collaborative study to resolve unanswered questions.

Summary Background  The discovery of somatostatin (SST) and the synthesis of a variety of analogues constituted a major therapeutic advance in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumours (GEP‐NETs). They currently provide the most efficient treatment to achieve symptomatic relief and have recently been demonstrated to inhibit tumour growth. Aim  To review 35 years of experience regarding the clinical application and efficacy of SST analogues. Methods  The PubMed database (1972–2009) was searched using somatostatin as a search term with combinations of terms including ‘treatment’; ‘neuroendocrine’; ‘carcinoid’; ‘tumor’; ‘octreotide’; ‘lanreotide’ and ‘pasireotide’. Results  In a review of 15 studies including 481 patients, the slow‐release formulations Sandostatin LAR and Somatuline SR/Autogel achieved symptomatic relief in 74.2% (61.9–92.8%) and 67.5% (40.0–100%), biochemical response in 51.4% (31.5–100%) and 39.0% (17.9–58%), and tumour response in 69.8% (47.0–87.5%) and 64.4% (48.0–87.0%) respectively. Novel SST analogues like SOM230 (pasireotide) that exhibit pan SST receptor activity and analogues with high affinity to specific somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes may further advance the field, but efficacy studies are lacking. Conclusion  As more precise understanding of NET cell biology evolves and molecular biological tools advance, more accurate identification of individual tumours sstr profile will probably facilitate a more precise delineation of SST analogue treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 169–188

No abstract