4.7 Article

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the lung: A prognostic spectrum

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 70-76

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.1202

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Neuroendocrine (NE) tumors of the lung include typical carcinoid (TC), atypical carcinoid (AC), large-cell NE carcinoma (LCNEC), and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), Their clinicopathologic profiles and relative grade of malignancy have not been defined, Patients and Methods From 10 Japanese institutes, 383 surgically resected pulmonary NE tumors were collected, The histologic diagnosis was determined by the consensus of a pathology panel consisting of six expert pathologists as TIC, AC, LCNEC, or SCLC on the basis of the WHO classification, and its relationship to clinicopathologic profiles was analyzed. Results Of the 383 tumors, 18 were excluded because of an improper specimen, The pathology panel reviewed the remaining 366 tumors, and a diagnosis of NE tumor was made in 318 patients (87.4%); 55 patients had TIC, nine had AC, 141 had LCNEC, and 113 had SCLC. The 5-year survival rates of patients with all stages were as follows: 96.2% for TC, 77.8% for AC, 40.3% for LCNEC, and 35.7% for SCLC. There was significant prognostic difference between TIC and AC as well as between AC and LCNEC+SCLC, However, there was no difference between LCNEC and SCLC, and their survival curves were superimposed, The multivarate analysis indicated that histologic type, completeness of resection, symptoms, nodal involvement, and age were significantly prognostic. Conclusion The grade of malignancy of NE tumors was upgraded in the following order: TIC, AC, LCNEC, and SCLC. No prognostic difference was noted between LCNEC and SCLC, The high-grade NE histology uniformly indicated poor prognosis regardless of its histologic type.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available