Lung neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) account for approximately one fifth of all lung malignancies. They are a heterogenous group of neoplasms that can be classified as low-and intermediate-grade PCs and high-grade large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). PCs are further divided into typical carcinoid (TC) and atypical carcinoid (AC) tumors based on the number of mitoses and presence of necrosis (1).PCs are rare, well-differentiated tumors that account for <2% of all lung cancers. The only curative treatment for PC tumors is a complete surgical resection. Resected PC tumor patients generally have a good prognosis with a 5-year overall survival 87-100% for TC patients and 60-70% for AC patients (2,3). However, PCs show a risk for late recurrence and distant metastasis. The risk is higher for ACs (20-35% metastasize) and lower for TCs (5-10% metastasize). Clinical management of metastatic disease remains challenging and a curative treatment strategy is not available (1,4). Thus, the aim of treatment is to control tumor growth and possible functioning syndromes to improve both quality of life and survival.
Challenges in the histopathological evaluation of pulmonary carcinoid tumorsDiagnosis of a PC requires a careful histological evaluation. Here, distinguishing between PCs and high-grade LCNEC and SCLC is crucial as it impacts subsequent surgical management and additional therapeutic management and has a significant impact on prognosis. Typically, a biopsy or fine-needle aspiration is the first sample the pathologist receives. Evaluating these small specimens can be challenging, which created a need for specific immunohistochemical markers that can assist in differential diagnostics (5).On the other hand, occurrence of PC tumor recurrence or metastasis cannot be reliably predicted with the current WHO classification. This leads to clinical and radiological surveillance, which causes unnecessary radiation exposure, is a constant reminder of the disease for the patients, and results in additional health care costs. Previous studies have reported several clinical and molecular markers associated with the risk of developing metastases and poor outcome (3). These include e.g., age, gender, performance status, TNM staging, mitotic index, and Ki-67 proliferation index at the