Tomonori Kawasaki1,2,3,4,5*†
Tomoaki Tashima2
Atsushi Enomoto3
Jiro Ichikawa4Hirokazu Nagai5
Chisako Muramatsu6Yasuhiro Nakamura2
Kyoichi Kaira2- 1Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
- 2Comprehensive Cancer Center, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
- 3Department of Pathology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
- 4Graduate School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Japan
- 5Clinical Research Center, Nagoya Medical Center, Aichi, Japan
- 6Faculty of Data Science, Shiga University, Hikone, Japan
1 Introduction
We read with great interest the article entitled ‘The Complex Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Spectrum of Neuroendocrine Tumors—An Overview of the Latest Classifications’ published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (1). Gheorghişan-Gălăţeanu et al. were concerned that over the years, the classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has changed significantly, often causing confusion due to clinical, molecular, and immunohistochemical variability. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the pivotal histological and immunohistochemical characteristics of NENs as well as an outline of the updated NEN classifications which does not rely on their site of origin could be expected to pave the way to validating possible diagnostic and prognostic markers and also guide the selection and administration of therapy (1).
2 Subsections relevant for the subject and discussion
In the breast oncology field, the assertion of NENs, as a cross-disciplinary disease concept in the WHO classification (5th ed.) updated in 2019, has given rise to various forms of confusion regarding diagnostic criteria as well as treatment on a global scale including in Japan (2, 3). Specifically, the existence of an authentic mammary NEN is still controversial and widely debated in the literature, with the exception of the fairly uncommon primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (4–7). Since neuroendocrine cells do not essentially exist in normal lacteal glands (8), breast neuroendocrine tumor (NET) can be regarded as being embryologically different from NETs arising within endocrine organs and/or derived from pre-existing neuroendocrine cells (9, 10). In fact, mammary carcinomas with neuroendocrine features are, intriguingly, of the luminal subtype, i.e., they express estrogen and/or progesterone receptors, and rarely have a clear ‘rosette’ architecture or nuclear, ‘salt-and-pepper’ chromatin pattern. Incidentally, we are aware that NENs of gynecological origin as well as those in the head and neck regions are closely associated with specific human papillomaviruses (11, 12).
Solid papillary carcinoma (SPC) of the breast, representing primarily an in situ nature, is characterized by a solid growth pattern with a delicate vascular/fibrovascular network, and in our experience as well as according to the literature, almost all were immunohistochemically demonstrated to have distinct neuroendocrine features (2, 13–16). The proliferative constructions show strikingly characteristic NET morphologies, in conjunction with finely granular cytoplasm and “plasmacytoid” cell appearances. Interestingly, in neoplasms of this type, bland-appearing neuroendocrine cells and/or “neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia” can often be found in the background breast tissues (10, 17). Accordingly, among mammary cancers, SPC could be the closest, not only morphologically but also developmentally, to conventional NETs. On the other hand, particularly under invasive breast tumor conditions, we occasionally experience “carcinomas with neuroendocrine morphologies”, in which neuroendocrine differentiation is suggested, but it is not possible to determine whether the tumor has an intrinsic neuroendocrine nature. Insulinoma-associated protein 1, a new next-generation marker, has the potential to allow tumors such as NENs or neuroendocrine phenotype cancers to be identified (18–21).
Regarding immunohistochemical features of breast NENs, most cases are positive for somatostatin receptor 2 as well as the estrogen receptor, and E-cadherin, while being negative for HER1 (EGFR), HER2, occasionally with gene analysis, and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (CKs), such as CK5/6 and CK14 (9, 22–24). Androgen receptor is also occasionally identified in NEN cells (2). The Ki67 (MIB-1) labeling index is not high in most cases (22, 23), the exception being those with neuroendocrine carcinoma (4, 6). Furthermore, CD56 (NCAM) can be expressed, but the interpretation of staining may be challenging (2). In fact, we recently demonstrated that, in the field of breast oncology, NCAM is considerably less sensitive and less specific than other neuroendocrine markers, because its antibody expression is common in normal mammary ducts and lobules without intrinsic neuroendocrine cells (25).
The possibility of metastatic NEN, including small cell carcinoma, from another site should be ruled out (4). First, it is necessary to confirm that there are no lesions raising suspicion of NEN in other organs, especially in the lung and gastrointestinal tract, on imaging and/or clinical history (2). Furthermore, the presence of an associated in situ lesion, or conventional-type mammary carcinoma component, confirms the primary nature of the tumor (4, 22, 26). GATA3, GCDFP-15 and/or mammaglobin immuno-expressions support a diagnosis of breast primary NEN (2). In addition, mammary NENs are generally CK7-positive and CK20-negative, whereas pulmonary small cell carcinoma is negative for both. TTF-1 expression in small cell mammary carcinoma has been reported in approximately 20% of cases (4, 27), but not diffuse strong nuclear staining as is frequently seen in small cell carcinoma of lung origin (2).
3 Conclusions
Overall, application of the interdisciplinary NEN concept, despite affecting a non-neuroendocrine organ, given the background of compatibility or exclusiveness of the histopathological classification based on the neuroendocrine “nature” and “morphology” of the tumors, e.g., SPC and hypercellular mucinous carcinoma, may well lead to an increasingly confusing situation in the field of breast oncology. From the perspective of molecular biology, it was recently demonstrated that breast NENs are characterized by an enrichment of mutations in transcription factors and likely constitute a spectrum of entities genomically as well as histologically related to mucinous carcinoma (28, 29). Thus, in our view, it would be better to group breast carcinomas with neuroendocrine features together as a relatively broad-based tumor entity, thereby focusing on neuroendocrine differentiation, perhaps providing a fruitful avenue to searching for novel future treatment methods.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: TK, TT, and KK. Methodology: TK, JI, and CM. Resources: TK. Writing – Original Draft Preparation: TK, and TT. Writing – Review and Editing: AE, YN, and KK. Supervision: HN. Funding Acquisition: TK. All authors contributed significantly to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
TK is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 21K06910 and 23K11869) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, National Hospital Organization (NHO) Grant (H29-NHO-01), and Joint Research Support Grant based on the Comprehensive Agreement between Saitama University and Saitama Medical University (21-J-14, 22-J-01 and 23-J-08).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Mr. Satoshi Kanno, Mr. Noriyuki Suzuki, Mr. Tomio Honma and Dr. Bierta Barfod for their technical assistance.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Gheorghişan-Gălăţeanu AA, Ilieşiu A, Lambrescu IM, Ţăpoi DA. The complex histopathological and immunohistochemical spectrum of neuroendocrine tumors—An overview of the latest classifications. Int J Mol Sci (2023) 24:1418. doi: 10.3390/ijms24021418
2. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Sasano H, Wu Y. Neuroendocrine neoplasms. In: WHO Classification of Tumors Editorial Board, editor. WHO Classification of Tumors, 5th Edition. Breast Tumors. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (2019). p. 155–61.
3. Metovic J, Cascardi E, Uccella S, Maragliano R, Querzoli G, Osella-Abate S, et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the breast: diagnostic agreement and impact on outcome. Virchows Arch (2022) 481:839–46. doi: 10.1007/s00428-022-03426-0
4. Kawasaki T, Bussolati G, Castellano I, Marchiò C, Daniele L, Molinaro L, et al. Small-cell carcinoma of the breast with squamous differentiation. Histopathology (2013) 63:739–41. doi: 10.1111/his.12201
5. Kawasaki T, Sugai T, Kashiwaba M, Sapino A. Mammary carcinomas with neuroendocrine features--correct understanding and proper use of the terminology. Histopathology (2015) 66:754–5. doi: 10.1111/his.12559
6. Kawasaki T, Hasebe T, Oiwa M, Sugiyama K, Muramatsu C, Ueda S, et al. Invasive carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the breast showing triple negative, large and basal cell-like features. Pathol Int (2019) 69:502–4. doi: 10.1111/pin.12832
7. Kawasaki T, Tashima T, Muramatsu C, Fujimoto A, Usami Y, Kodama H, et al. Neuroendocrine tumor of the breast showing invasive micropapillary features and multiple lymph node metastases. Cancer Rep (2023) 6:e1775. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1775
8. Viacava P, Castagna M, Bevilacqua G. Absence of neuroendocrine cells in fetal and adult mammary gland: are neuroendocrine breast tumours real neuroendocrine tumours? Breast (1995) 4:143–6. doi: 10.1016/0960-9776(95)90012-8
9. Righi L, Sapino A, Marchiò C, Papotti M, Bussolati G. Neuroendocrine differentiation in breast cancer: established facts and unresolved problems. Semin Diagn Pathol (2010) 27:69–76. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2009.12.003
10. Kawasaki T, Mochizuki K, Yamauchi H, Inoue S, Kondo T, Oishi N, et al. Neuroendocrine cells associated with neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast: nature and significance. J Clin Pathol (2012) 65:699–703. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200765
11. Ordulu Z, Mino-Kenudson M, Young RH, Van de Vijver K, Zannoni GF, Félix A, et al. Morphologic and molecular heterogeneity of cervical neuroendocrine neoplasia: A report of 14 cases. Am J Surg Pathol (2022) 46:1670–81. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001943
12. Benzerdjeb N, Traverse-Glehen A, Philouze P, Bishop J, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M. Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the head and neck: human papillomavirus tumour status/p16 status and impact on overall survival. Histopathology (2020) 76:581–91. doi: 10.1111/his.13982
13. Kawasaki T, Nakamura S, Sakamoto G, Murata S, Tsunoda H, Suzuki K, et al. Neuroendocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (NE-DCIS) of the breast--comparative clinicopathological study of 20 NE-DCIS cases and 274 non-NE-DCIS cases. Histopathology (2008) 53:288–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03093.x
14. Kawasaki T, Nakamura S, Sakamoto G, Kondo T, Tsunoda H, Ishii Y, et al. Neuroendocrine ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: cytological features in 32 cases. Cytopathology (2011) 22:43–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00742.x
15. Kawasaki T, Mochizuki K, Yamauchi H, Yagata H, Kondo T, Tsunoda H, et al. High prevalence of neuroendocrine carcinoma in breast lesions detected by the clinical symptom of bloody nipple discharge. Breast (2012) 21:652–6. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.016
16. Kawasaki T, Inoue A, Mochizuki K, Inoue S, Nakazawa T, Kondo T, et al. Neuroendocrine ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type, of the breast detected by screening mammography: a potentially pre-invasive counterpart of high grade neuroendocrine tumours. Pathology (2012) 44:273–5. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e3283513feb
17. Kawasaki T, Kubota T, Ichihara S, Horibe K, Hasebe T. Neuroendocrine cells associated with endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma: a potential precursor lesion? Pathology (2018) 50:573–5. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2018.01.008
18. Kawasaki T, Kaira K. Insulinoma-associated protein 1 (INSM1) expression in breast carcinomas with neuroendocrine morphologies: application and future prospective. Virchows Arch (2021) 479:191–4. doi: 10.1007/s00428-020-02935-0
19. Kawasaki T, Kaira K, Nakamura Y, Imai H, Barfod B. Re: INSM1 is a novel prognostic neuroendocrine marker for luminal B breast cancer. Pathology (2021) 53:292–3. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2020.12.001
20. Kawasaki T, Tashima T, Nakamura Y, Kondo T, Enomoto A, Kaira K. Letter to Editor Regarding “Nuclear Insulinoma-Associated Protein 1 Expression as a Marker of Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Neoplasms of the Breast” by Seijnhaeve et al. Int J Surg Pathol (2022) 30:470–1. doi: 10.1177/10668969211067764
21. Kawasaki T, Tashima T, Enomoto A, Kondo T, Nagai H, Nakamura Y, et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the breast: diagnostic confusion and future perspectives. Virchows Arch (2023) 482:929–30. doi: 10.1007/s00428-023-03513-w
22. Kawasaki T, Bussolati G, Marchiò C, Castellano I, Daniele L, Molinaro L, et al. Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumour of the breast showing peculiar endovascular spread. Histopathology (2014) 64:597–600. doi: 10.1111/his.12276
23. Kawasaki T, Ishida M, Tada T, Matsuya H, Saitoh M, Sato A, et al. Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the breast with recurrence due to needle tract seeding. Virchows Arch (2015) 466:479–81. doi: 10.1007/s00428-014-1704-5
24. Kawasaki T, Suda M, Kondo T, Nakazawa T, Mochizuki K, Yamane T, et al. Microinvasive neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from a central papilloma of the breast. J Clin Pathol (2011) 64:549–51. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2011.089219
25. Kawasaki T, Kondo T, Nakazawa T, Mochizuki K, Yamane T, Murata S, et al. Is CD56 a specific and reliable neuroendocrine marker for discriminating between endocrine/neuroendocrine ductal carcinoma in situ and intraductal papilloma of the breast? Pathol Int (2011) 61:49–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1827.2010.02604.x
26. Nakai T, Kawasaki T, Tada T, Ishida M, Iwakoshi A, Enomoto A, et al. Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the breast with extensive lymphatic and vascular infiltration. Pathol Int (2016) 66:706–7. doi: 10.1111/pin.12471
27. Kawasaki T, Bussolati G, Sugai T, Sapino A. A rare case of breast cancer showing distinct TTF-1 nuclear expression: small-cell carcinoma or not? Histopathology (2015) 66:752–3. doi: 10.1111/his.12482
28. Weigelt B, Geyer FC, Horlings HM, Kreike B, Halfwerk H, Reis-Filho JS. Mucinous and neuroendocrine breast carcinomas are transcriptionally distinct from invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type. Mod Pathol (2009) 22:1401–14. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.112
Keywords: breast, diagnosis, immunohistochemistry, insulinoma-associated protein 1, neuroendocrine neoplasm, neuroendocrine tumor, treatment
Citation: Kawasaki T, Tashima T, Enomoto A, Ichikawa J, Nagai H, Muramatsu C, Nakamura Y and Kaira K (2023) Neuroendocrine neoplasms in the breast oncology field: dilemmas of nature and morphology. Front. Endocrinol. 14:1216424. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1216424
Received: 15 June 2023; Accepted: 18 October 2023;
Published: 01 November 2023.
Edited by:
Paraskevi Xekouki, University of Crete, GreeceReviewed by:
Alessandro Mangogna, Institute for Maternal and Child Health Burlo Garofolo (IRCCS), ItalyGiuseppe Angelico, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IRCCS), Italy
Copyright © 2023 Kawasaki, Tashima, Enomoto, Ichikawa, Nagai, Muramatsu, Nakamura and Kaira. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tomonori Kawasaki, tomo.kawasaki.14@gmail.com
†ORCID: Tomonori Kawasaki, orcid.org/0000-0003-1629-2549