Abstract:Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNECs) have similarities with other lung cancers, but their precise relationship has remained unclear. Here we perform a comprehensive genomic (n = 60) and transcriptomic (n = 69) analysis of 75 LCNECs and identify two molecular subgroups: “type I LCNECs” with bi-allelic TP53 and STK11/KEAP1 alterations (37%), and “type II LCNECs” enriched for bi-allelic inactivation of TP53 and RB1 (42%). Despite sharing genomic alterations with adenocarcinomas and squamous cel… Show more
“…The value of INSM1 in an algorithm of ≥2 neuroendocrine markers staining for biopsies to recognise LCNEC is unclear. Furthermore, recent studies have addressed the existence of different molecular subtypes of LCNEC . Proposed are the LCNEC‐SCLC with TP53/RB1 mutations recognised with IHC by loss of the RB1 protein and the LCNEC‐NSCLC subtype with STK11/KEAP/KRAS mutations and the presence of RB1 protein staining .…”
AimsPulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is underdiagnosed on biopsy specimens. We evaluated if routine neuroendocrine immunohistochemical (IHC) stains are helpful in the diagnosis of LCNEC on biopsy specimens.Methods and resultsUsing the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA), surgically resected LCNEC with matching pre‐operative biopsy specimens were identified and haematoxylin and IHC slides (CD56, chromogranin‐A, synaptophysin) requested. Subsequently, three pathologists assigned (1) the presence or absence of the WHO 2015 criteria and (2) cumulative size of all (biopsy) specimens. For validation, a tissue microarray (TMA) of non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 77) and LCNEC (n = 19) was used. LCNEC was confirmed on the resection specimens in 32 of 48 re‐reviewed cases. In 47% (n = 15 of 32) LCNEC was also confirmed in the paired biopsy specimens. Neuroendocrine morphology was absent in 53% (n = 17 of 32) of paired biopsy specimens, more often when smaller amounts of tissue were available for evaluation [29% < 5 mm (n = 14) versus 67% ≥5 mm (n = 18) P = 0.04]. Combined with current WHO criteria, positive staining for greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC markers increased the sensitivity for LCNEC from 47% to 93% on paired biopsy specimens, and further validated using an independent TMA of LCNEC and NSCLC with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 99%, respectively.Conclusions
LCNEC is difficult to diagnose because neuroendocrine morphology is frequently absent in biopsy specimens. In NSCLC devoid of obvious morphological squamous or adenocarcinoma features, positive staining in greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC stains supports the diagnosis of LCNEC.
“…The value of INSM1 in an algorithm of ≥2 neuroendocrine markers staining for biopsies to recognise LCNEC is unclear. Furthermore, recent studies have addressed the existence of different molecular subtypes of LCNEC . Proposed are the LCNEC‐SCLC with TP53/RB1 mutations recognised with IHC by loss of the RB1 protein and the LCNEC‐NSCLC subtype with STK11/KEAP/KRAS mutations and the presence of RB1 protein staining .…”
AimsPulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is underdiagnosed on biopsy specimens. We evaluated if routine neuroendocrine immunohistochemical (IHC) stains are helpful in the diagnosis of LCNEC on biopsy specimens.Methods and resultsUsing the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA), surgically resected LCNEC with matching pre‐operative biopsy specimens were identified and haematoxylin and IHC slides (CD56, chromogranin‐A, synaptophysin) requested. Subsequently, three pathologists assigned (1) the presence or absence of the WHO 2015 criteria and (2) cumulative size of all (biopsy) specimens. For validation, a tissue microarray (TMA) of non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 77) and LCNEC (n = 19) was used. LCNEC was confirmed on the resection specimens in 32 of 48 re‐reviewed cases. In 47% (n = 15 of 32) LCNEC was also confirmed in the paired biopsy specimens. Neuroendocrine morphology was absent in 53% (n = 17 of 32) of paired biopsy specimens, more often when smaller amounts of tissue were available for evaluation [29% < 5 mm (n = 14) versus 67% ≥5 mm (n = 18) P = 0.04]. Combined with current WHO criteria, positive staining for greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC markers increased the sensitivity for LCNEC from 47% to 93% on paired biopsy specimens, and further validated using an independent TMA of LCNEC and NSCLC with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 99%, respectively.Conclusions
LCNEC is difficult to diagnose because neuroendocrine morphology is frequently absent in biopsy specimens. In NSCLC devoid of obvious morphological squamous or adenocarcinoma features, positive staining in greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC stains supports the diagnosis of LCNEC.
“…Two studies have recently reported the classification of LCNEC into subgroups using next generation sequencing …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…George et al . classified LCNEC into two subtypes, named type I LCNEC and type II LCNEC, not only based on gene mutational profiles (such as TP53 or RB1 ) but also on neuroendocrine gene expression profiles using the RNA sequencing expression data on 69 LCNECs and 110 SCLCs . These authors found that despite their gene mutational patterns, type I LCNEC lacking of TP53 and RB1 coalteration exhibited high expression of neuroendocrine genes with closest similarity to those of SCLC, and type II LCNEC with coalteration of TP53 and RB1 revealed reduced expression of neuroendocrine genes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our result was consistent with that of the study by George et al . where LCNEC could be classified into two subgroups based on immunostaining patterns with the three neuroendocrine markers and sTP, which exhibited high expression of neuroendocrine markers, which were similar to sSCLC in clinicopathological features. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between gene mutational profiles and neuroendocrine gene expression profiles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SCLC metastasizes lymph nodes and distant organs even in the early stage . The two types resemble each other both in clinical behavior, poor prognosis and genetic background …”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.