Gastric NET Grading

Site-specific WHO grading for gastric neuroendocrine tumors.

Free with an account

Log in to calculate. You can explore the inputs and reference material below; results need a free student account.

This calculator is a pathology decision-support and educational tool for mathematical normalization of mitotic counts and application of established gastric NET proliferation grading criteria. It does not replace the current WHO classification, AJCC staging, CAP protocol, institutional protocol, or professional pathologist judgment.

Reference

About this calculator

Grades well-differentiated gastric NETs using mitotic rate per 2 mm² and Ki-67 index, per the CAP Stomach NET protocol. The higher of the two grades determines the final result.

Cytologic atypia has no impact on clinical behavior of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and is not part of this grading system. There is no atypia input in this calculator.

Site scope. This calculator is specific to gastric NETs. Duodenal/ampullary, jejunal/ileal, pancreatic, and colorectal NETs are addressed by their own separate CAP protocols, which may carry site-specific notes not included here.

Grading thresholds

Exact boundaries, never rounded before comparison. 1.99 → G1; 2.00 → G2; 20.00 → G2; 20.01 → G3. Same convention for Ki-67 at 3% and 20%. Final grade = higher of the two — never averaged.

Grade	Mitotic rate (per 2 mm²)	Ki-67 (%)
Well-differentiated NET, G1	< 2	< 3
Well-differentiated NET, G2	2 – 20	3 – 20
Well-differentiated NET, G3	> 20	> 20

Mitotic rate

Only clearly identifiable mitotic figures are counted; hyperchromatic, karyorrhectic, or apoptotic nuclei are excluded. Assess the most mitotically active area, evaluating at least 10 mm².

Ki-67 proliferation index

Reported as percent positive tumor cells in the area of highest nuclear labeling (the hot spot).

Methodology is not standardized. Automated counting and manual "eyeballing" are both used. Eyeballing can be used for most tumors. For a Ki-67 index close to a grade cutoff (near 3% or near 20%), a manual count on a print of a camera-captured image of the hot spot is recommended rather than eyeballing alone. A minimum of 500 tumor cells is recommended; note if fewer were available.

Field diameter reference table

Generated dynamically from A = π(d/2)², not from stored values. Your current diameter is highlighted.

Values are computed from the formula; differences of about ±1 HPF from the published CAP table can occur due to rounding conventions in the source document. Calculations in this app always use the unrounded formula result, not the table.

Field diameter (mm)	Area (mm²)	HPF for 10 mm²
0.40	0.126	≈80
0.41	0.132	≈76
0.42	0.139	≈72
0.43	0.145	≈69
0.44	0.152	≈66
0.45	0.159	≈63
0.46	0.166	≈60
0.47	0.173	≈58
0.48	0.181	≈55
0.49	0.189	≈53
0.50	0.196	≈51
0.51	0.204	≈49
0.52	0.212	≈47
0.53	0.221	≈45
0.54	0.229	≈44
0.55	0.238	≈42
0.56	0.246	≈41
0.57	0.255	≈39
0.58	0.264	≈38
0.59	0.273	≈37
0.60	0.283	≈35
0.61	0.292	≈34
0.62	0.302	≈33
0.63	0.312	≈32
0.64	0.322	≈31
0.65	0.332	≈30
0.66	0.342	≈29
0.67	0.353	≈28
0.68	0.363	≈28
0.69	0.374	≈27

Well-differentiated NET-G3 vs. poorly differentiated NEC

There is a recognized subgroup of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors with a Ki-67 index >20% — and a mitotic rate usually <20 per 10 HPF — that nonetheless retain typical well-differentiated morphology rather than the morphology of a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC).

Under WHO-2010, these tumors were classified as G3 poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. Previous studies — most on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors — demonstrated that these tumors have a worse prognosis than grade 2 (Ki-67 3–20%, mitosis <20/10 HPF) NETs, but are not as aggressive as poorly differentiated NEC. Under the WHO 2019 Digestive System Tumours Blue Book and AJCC 9th edition, tumors with typical well-differentiated morphology are instead classified as well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, G3 — a biologically distinct entity from NEC:

• Worse prognosis than G2 NET, but better prognosis than NEC

• Distinct underlying genetics from NEC

• Reduced responsiveness to platinum-based chemotherapy compared with NEC

This calculator determines the numeric grade (G1/G2/G3) from mitotic rate and Ki-67 only. It cannot and does not distinguish well-differentiated NET-G3 from poorly differentiated NEC. That distinction is based on tumor morphology — architecture and nuclear features — and requires direct pathologist evaluation. A numeric G3 result must be paired with morphologic assessment before rendering a final diagnostic category.

The "<20 per 10 HPF" figure above is a descriptive characterization from the literature, not a separate formal grading input — the only mitotic input in this calculator is the field-diameter-based mitoses-per-2-mm² measurement on the Calculator tab. No input field, checkbox, or toggle in this calculator attempts to make the NET-G3-vs-NEC determination algorithmically — it is intentionally out of scope.

Sources

1. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Digestive System Tumours. 5th ed. Lyon, France: IARC; 2019.

2. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 9th edition. American College of Surgeons.

3. College of American Pathologists (CAP). Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Stomach (document Stomach.NET_5.0.0.0.REL_CAPCP).

The source protocol excerpt also carries in-text citation markers for specific methodological and outcome claims (Ki-67 counting method comparisons, prognosis of the NET-G3 subgroup, genetic distinction from NEC, platinum-chemotherapy responsiveness) whose full bibliographic entries were not included in the supplied text. Those specific citations are not fabricated here — consult the complete published protocol for exact references. The historical WHO-2010 classification is mentioned for context only and is superseded by the current editions cited above.

Educational and decision-support tool only. Does not replace the current WHO classification, AJCC staging, CAP protocol, institutional protocol, or professional pathologist judgment — particularly for distinguishing well-differentiated NET-G3 from poorly differentiated NEC, which requires direct morphologic evaluation.