A clinicopathological study of peripheral, small-sized high-grade neuroendocrine tumours of the lung: differences between small-cell lung carcinoma and large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma

Clinical characteristics and treatment management of combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, a subtype of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma

Combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (CLCNEC) is a rare neuroendocrine carcinoma, accounting for approximately 10% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC). Mainly composed of coexisting adenocarcinoma components, with strong invasiveness and poor prognosis. The treatment regimen for CLCNEC mainly refers to complete surgical resection as the first choice in the early stage, while patients with stage II or higher require adjuvant treatment. At present, research on CLCNEC is mostly small sample and retrospective, and there is no consensus on whether molecular typing and treatment should be carried out. There is considerable controversy over whether it should be managed as small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, in order to solve the problem of confusion in the selection of treatment regimens for CLCNEC, while also considering the therapeutic effects, this article summarizes and analyzes previous studies, fully seeks evidence, and boldly proposes new therapeutic insights: the etoposide-platinum (EP) regimen serves as the basis for adjuvant therapy; In addition, SCLC/NSCLC-CLCNEC can be distinguished based on presence of RB1 and TP53 co-mutation, and targeted therapy or NSCLC type chemotherapy including platinum + gemcitabine or taxanes (NSCLC-GEM/TAX) can be used in combination or sequentially for NSCLC-CLCNEC.

Clinical and Pathologic Differences between Small-Cell Carcinoma and Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung

BACKGROUND

Both small-cell carcinoma (SCLC) and large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of the lung are often clinically dealt with as being in the same category as neuroendocrine carcinoma, and their clinical differences have not been adequately assessed.

METHODS

The postoperative prognosis was retrospectively analyzed using the data of 196 patients who underwent resection for SCLC or LCNEC.

RESULTS

Of the patients included, 99 (50.5%) had SCLC and 97 (49.5%) had LCNEC. The median duration of follow-up was 39 months (interquartile range [IQR] 21-76) and 56 months (IQR 21-87) for SCLC and LCNEC, respectively. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) probabilities were 53.7% and 62.7% (p = 0.133) for patients with SCLC and LCNEC, respectively. In the SCLC group, a multivariate analysis showed that adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.99, p = 0.04) was the only factor that was significantly associated with OS. In the LCNEC group, univariate analyses demonstrated that pathologic stage I (p = 0.01) was the only factor that was associated with better OS after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We found different clinical features in SCLC and LCNEC; in patients with SCLC, because OS could be expected to significantly improve with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with resected SCLC of any pathologic stage should receive adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with LCNEC, because pathologic stage I LCNEC is related to better prognosis than any other stages, a thorough clinical staging, including invasive staging, according to present guidelines should be performed to identify clinical stage I LCNEC with the highest certainty.

Pulmonary Combined Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

Pulmonary combined large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (CLCNEC) is a rare neuroendocrine tumor pertained to lung large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) with aggressive behavior and poor prognosis generally. The clinical features of CLCNEC are not specific including cough, expectoration, chest distress, chest pain, etc., which are prone to have different manifestations of the mixed components. Owing to the low incidence, there are few related small-scale retrospective studies and case reports. Currently, the treatment regimen of CLCNEC mainly refers to LCNEC that complete surgical resection is preferred in the early stage and according to previous researches, platinum-based small cell lung cancer (SCLC) standard treatment regimen showed promising results in postoperative and advanced CLCNEC as compared to that of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adenocarcinoma-CLCNEC more likely harbor driver gene mutation, and may benefit from targeted therapy. As for immunotherapy, more clinical trial data are needed to support its benefits. This article will fill the gap and will provide new insight into the clinical characteristics, pathological diagnosis and treatment endeavors of CLCNEC.

Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare subtype of malignant pulmonary tumor. The incidence rate of LCNEC was reported to be 0.3%–3% in lung cancers. Although LCNEC is classified as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is more aggressive and malignant than other NSCLC, and its biological behavior is similar to that of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Most of the LCNEC patients are elderly smoking male and the clinical manifestations are not specific. The imaging manifestations of the tumors are often located in the periphery and the upper lobes, and the enlargement of mediastinal or hilar lymph nodes is common. The diagnosis is mainly based on pathology by the histological features and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Specific neuroendocrine markers such as chromogranin A (CgA), synaptophysin (Syn) and CD56 are usually diffusely positive in LCNEC, and found that insulinoma-associated protein (INSM1) and high rate of Ki-67 are helpful for diagnosis. More differential diagnoses also increase the difficulty of correctly diagnosing LCNEC. The rise of LCNEC molecular typing in recent years may be helpful for diagnosis and subsequent treatment. This review focuses on the epidemiological features, imaging studies, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of LCNEC.

Role of surgery in high-grade neuroendocrine tumors of the lung

Background

This study aims to evaluate the surgical results for high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas and to identify factors that influence prognosis.

Methods

Between January 2009 and December 2017, a total of 71 patients (58 males, 13 females; mean age: 62±9.6 years; range, 38 to 78 years) with a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival and five-year overall survival rates were evaluated.

Results

The mean overall survival was 60.7±6.9 months with a five-year survival rate of 44.3%. The mean overall survival and five-year overall survival rates according to disease stage were as follows: Stage 1, 67±10.8 months (46%); Stage 2, 61.4±10.8 months (45%); and Stage 3, 33.2±8.6 months (32%) (p=0.02). The mean overall survival and five-year overall survival rate according to histological types were as follows: in large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, 59.4±9.2 months (45%); in small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, 68.6±12.2 months (43%); and in combined-type neuroendocrine carcinoma, 40.9±10.1 months (35%) (p=0.34).

Conclusion

Thoracic surgeons should be very selective in performing pulmonary resection in patients with Stage 3 high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas and combined cell subtype tumors.

Comparative Study of Pulmonary Combined Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma and Combined Small-Cell Carcinoma in Surgically Resected High-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Lung

Objectives

Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) are both classified as pure and combined subtypes. Due to the low incidence and difficult diagnosis of combined LCNEC (C-LCNEC) and combined SCLC (C-SCLC), few studies have compared their clinical features and prognosis.

Materials and Methods

We compared the clinical features, mutation status of driver genes (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, KRAS, and BRAF), and prognosis between C-LCNEC and C-SCLC. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were applied for survival analysis.

Results

We included a total of 116 patients with C-LCNEC and 76 patients with C-SCLC in the present study. There were significant differences in distribution of smoking history, tumor location, pT stage, pN stage, pTNM stage, visceral pleural invasion (VPI), and combined components between C-LCNEC and C-SCLC (P<0.05 for all). C-SCLC was more advanced at diagnosis as compared to C-LCNEC. The incidence of EGFR mutations in C-LCNEC patients was higher than C-SCLC patients (25.7 vs. 5%, P=0.004). We found that tumor size, pN stage, peripheral CEA level, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independently prognostic factors for DFS and OS in C-LCNEC patients, while peripheral NSE level, pT stage, pN stage, VPI and adjuvant chemotherapy were independently associated with DFS and OS for C-SCLC patients (P<0.05 for all). Propensity score matching with adjustment for the confounders confirmed a more favorable DFS (P=0.032) and OS (P=0.019) in patients with C-LCNEC in comparison with C-SCLC patients upon survival analysis.

Conclusions

The mutation landscape of driver genes seemed to act in different way between C-SCLC and C-LCNEC, likely by which result in clinical phenotype difference as well as better outcome in C-LCNEC.

Neuroendocrine marker staining pattern categorization of small-sized pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma

Background

The aim of this study was to identify subgroups with good or bad prognosis in patients with pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) based on immunostaining patterns with neuroendocrine markers and compare them with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC).

Methods

From January 2001 to December 2017, of all patients with resected LCNEC and SCLC, we selected patients whose pathological tumor sizes were ≤30 mm in diameter (defined as small‐sized tumors) and who underwent complete resection with lymphadenectomy. We classified patients with small‐sized LCNEC (sLCNEC) into two subgroups based on immunostaining patterns with three neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin A, synaptophysin, and NCAM) and compared them to small‐sized SCLC (sSCLC).

Results

A total of 48 patients with sLCNEC and 39 patients with sSCLC were enrolled. Of 48 patients with sLCNEC, 21 were categorized as the small‐sized triple‐positive group (sTP), whose patients were positive for the three neuroendocrine markers, and 27 patients were categorized as the small‐sized nontriple‐positive group (sNTP), whose patients were not positive for all three neuroendocrine markers. The percentage of lymph node metastasis was significantly lower in sNTP than in sTP and sSCLC. There was no significant difference in overall survival, but recurrence‐free survival (RFS) and tumor‐specific survival (TSS) were significantly poorer in sTP and sSCLC than in sNTP. Multivariate analysis revealed sTP and sSCLC were independent prognostic factors for poorer RFS and TSS than those of sNTP.

Conclusions

The sNTP subgroup had a good prognosis and the sTP subgroup a poor prognosis. There were some similarities in clinicopathological features between sTP and sSCLC.

Comparative study of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and small cell lung carcinoma in high-grade neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: a large population-based study

Background: In 2015, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) was removed from the large cell carcinoma group and classified with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) constituting two members of the high-grade neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the lung. However, the difference between high-grade LCNEC and SCLC in terms of clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis has not been fully understood owing to the rarity of LCNEC.

Patients and methods: Patients with high-grade LCNEC and SCLC at initial diagnosis between 2001 and 2014 were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program database. Clinicopathological characteristics between high-grade LCNEC and SCLC were compared using the Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared using the log-rank test, Cox models and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results: A total of 1223 patients with high-grade LCNEC and 18182 patients with high-grade SCLC were enrolled. To the best of our knowledge, this study involved the largest number of high-grade LCNEC patients to date, with respect to a comparison between high-grade LCNEC and high-grade SCLC patients. There were significant differences in age, sex, race, laterality, SEER stage, nodal status, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, but not marital status, between high-grade LCNEC and SCLC patients. High-grade LCNEC patients had a better OS and CSS than high-grade SCLC patients. Subgroup analysis also confirmed the better prognosis of the high-grade LCNEC patients in the regional stage, distant stage and surgery subgroups. However, no significant difference in prognosis was observed between the two non-surgery subgroups, which was confirmed using PSM analysis. Furthermore, high-grade LCNEC patients showed different metastatic patterns to high-grade SCLC patients.

Conclusion: These results suggested that high-grade LCNEC and high-grade SCLC were different histological types, and that a detailed classification for high-grade NETs of the lung was needed.

Perioperative chemotherapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin for pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: a case report and literature review

Background

Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is associated with poor prognosis, and its treatment strategy is still controversial, especially regarding chemotherapy regimens.

Case report

We present the case of a 49-year-old Chinese male with primary pulmonary LCNEC treated with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin plus pemetrexed. A suspected quasi-circular mass in the left lower pulmonary lobe and an enlarged mediastinal lymph node were found. The patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation based on computerized tomography-guided percutaneous lung biopsy. An EGFR gene mutation test showed negative results. Cisplatin and pemetrexed were administered as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen. The primary lesion had reduced markedly, and the enlarged mediastinal lymph node had disappeared after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A left lower lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection were performed. The lesion was confirmed as LCNEC based on postoperative histopathological analysis and immunohistochemical results. The patient underwent four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed for a month postoperatively, followed by postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. The patient was still alive after a follow-up of 24 months, with no evidence of tumor recurrence.

Conclusion

Cisplatin combined with pemetrexed is effective and safe for patients with pulmonary LCNEC.

Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors: Part II. Treatment

Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors that arise from Kulchitzky cells of the bronchial mucosa consist of a spectrum of histologic features leading to a variable prognosis. Although typical carcinoid represents the most benign course, small-cell cancer has the grimmest outcome. Therefore, differentiating the spectrum of neuroendocrine tumors helps one not only to determine the prognosis, but also to guide the treatment options. In this part, we aim to discuss the treatment options in pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors except for small-cell lung cancer.

Management of Brain Metastasis in Patients With Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinomas

Background:

The patterns of intracranial failure in patients with brain metastasis from pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (PNEC) remain unknown.

Methods:

From 1998 to 2013, 29 patients with the diagnosis of PNEC were treated for brain metastasis: 16 patients (55%) underwent whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), 5 (17%) patients underwent WBRT with a stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) boost, and 8 (28%) patients underwent primary SRS alone.

Results:

The median age at treatment was 61 years (range: 44-84 years) and the median follow-up was 9.6 months (0-157.4 months). Of the patients treated with SRS alone, 1 patient had radiographic local progression of disease and 1 patient had a distant intracranial failure. Of the patients treated with WBRT with or without an SRS boost, 9 patients developed intracranial progression, including 1 local failure. No differences in rates of intracranial progression or local failure between the 2 groups ( P = .94 and P = .44, respectively) were observed. The actuarial rates of distant intracranial failure at 12 months were 32.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.9%-56.8%) and 25% (95% CI 0.0%-67.4%) in patients undergoing primary WBRT or SRS, respectively ( P = .31). The median overall survival was 15.8 months in patients treated with WBRT and 20.4 months in patients treated with primary SRS ( P = .78).

Conclusion:

Patients with brain metastasis from PNECs can be effectively treated with either WBRT or SRS alone, with a pattern of failure more consistent with non-small cell lung cancer than small cell lung cancer. In this series, there was not a statistically significant increased risk of distant intracranial failure when patients were treated with primary SRS.

Predictors of survival after operation among patients with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung

BACKGROUND

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) represents a rare entity in non-small cell lung cancer, with only partially understood biology and poor survival. A diagnosis is difficult to obtain on the basis of small biopsy specimens, but surgical procedures may be indicated in only a small fraction of patients. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and immunohistochemical features of patients with LCNEC to identify predictors of outcome and long-term survival.

METHODS

The clinical and pathologic data of 57 surgical patients with LCNEC between March 2003 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The tumor specimens were examined for expression of neuronal specific enolase, synaptophysin, CD 56, chromogranin-A, and the somatostatin receptor by immunohistochemistry. Statistical analysis was performed to determine significant predictors for overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients (41 men, 16 women) underwent thoracic operations with curative intent. Complete resection was achieved in 91% of cases. The results of staining for CD56, synaptophysin, neuronal specific enolase, chromogranin-A, and somatostatin were positive in 86%, 81%, 68%, 61%, and 21%, respectively. Recurrence occurred in 28 patients (49%). Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were 50% and 45%, respectively, after 3 years. Advanced nodal status (N1, p < 0.025; N2, p < 0.02) and simultaneous expression of CD56 and chromogranin-A (p < 0.04) were significantly associated with poorer outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

LCNEC is a rare neuroendocrine pulmonary malignancy that is associated with poor prognosis and high recurrence rates. Surgical treatment can achieve satisfactory results in selected cases. Neuroendocrine marker profiles may predict prognosis and may influence the decision for adjuvant therapy or follow-up intervals.

Treatment options for patients with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of the lung is categorized as a variant of large cell carcinomas, and LCNEC tumors display biological behaviors resembling those of small cell lung carcinomas and features of high-grade neuroendocrine tumors. Because patients with LCNEC have a poor prognosis, surgery alone is not sufficient. Multimodality therapies, including adjuvant chemotherapy, appear promising for improved prognosis in patients with LCNEC. In this review article, we discuss treatment options for patients with LCNEC of the lung.

Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors: study of 90 cases focusing on clinicopathological characteristics, immunophenotype, preoperative biopsy, and frozen section diagnoses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors have a prognostic spectrum including typical carcinoid (TC), atypical carcinoid (AC), small cell carcinoma (SCLC), and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC). We conducted a retrospective study to compare their clinicopathological characteristics, immunophenotype, preoperative biopsy and frozen section diagnoses, and prognosis.

METHODS

Ninety cases of surgically treated pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors were studied. Immunohistochemical studies were performed using antibodies to chromogranin A, synaptophysin, and CD56. The preoperative biopsy and frozen section diagnoses were reviewed.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rates for TC, AC, SCLC, and LCNEC were 96.6%, 66.7%, 42.4%, and 38.0%, respectively. T stage and pleural status correlated with outcome of SCLC and LCNEC, but N-stage and overall TNM stage did not. In preoperative biopsy, accurate diagnosis was achieved in 5 of 11 TC, 2 of 4 AC, 6 of 15 SCLC, and 0 of 5 LCNEC cases. Using frozen sections, accurate diagnosis was achieved in 8 of 12 TC, 2 of 11 SCLC, and 0 of 11 LCNEC cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LCNEC was the most difficult to diagnose using either preoperative biopsy or frozen sections. T stage and pleural status can predict outcome of SCLC and LCNEC.

Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung

Neuroendocrine tumors may develop throughout the human body with the majority being found in the gastrointestinal tract and bronchopulmonary system. Neuroendocrine tumors are classified according to the grade of biological aggressiveness (G1-G3) and the extent of differentiation (well-differentiated/poorly-differentiated). The well-differentiated neoplasms comprise typical (G1) and atypical (G2) carcinoids. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas as well as small cell carcinomas (G3) are poorly-differentiated. The identification and differentiation of atypical from typical carcinoids or large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas and small cell carcinomas is essential for treatment options and prognosis. Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors are characterized according to the proportion of necrosis, the mitotic activity, palisading, rosette-like structure, trabecular pattern and organoid nesting. The given information about the histopathological assessment, classification, prognosis, genetic aberration as well as treatment options of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors are based on own experiences and reviewing the current literature available. Most disagreements among the classification of neuroendocrine tumor entities exist in the identification of typical versus atypical carcinoids, atypical versus large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas versus small cell carcinomas. Additionally, the classification is restricted in terms of limited specificity of immunohistochemical markers and possible artifacts in small biopsies which can be compressed in cytological specimens. Until now, pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors have been increasing in incidence. As compared to NSCLCs, only little research has been done with respect to new molecular targets as well as improving the classification and differential diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors of the lung.