Combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (C-LCNEC) has a poor prognosis and there is no consensus about the treatment regimen for both LCNEC and C-LCNEC patients. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a 47-year-old female who received surgical resection. The postoperative histology and staging of the tumor suggested C-LCNEC with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and T2aN0M0 stage IB. Next-generation sequencing test showed KIF5B/RET fusion mutation without EGFR, ALK, RB1, and TP53 alterations. Adjuvant chemotherapy with 4-cycle docetaxel plus carboplatin was given and brain metastasis occurred after 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: C-LCNEC with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma is rare and highly aggressive cancer. Surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy with SCLC regimen may improve the disease-free survival and overall survival. The accumulation of similar cases will clarify the profile and management of the disease.

A combined preoperative red cell distribution width and carcinoembryonic antigen score contribute to prognosis prediction in stage I lung adenocarcinoma.

AIMS: Hematological markers that can be used for prognosis prediction for stage I lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) are still lacking. Here, we examined the prognostic value of a combination of the red cell distribution width (RDW) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), namely, the RDW-CEA score (RCS), in stage I LUAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study with 154 patients with stage I LUAD was conducted. Patients were divided into RCS 1 (decreased RDW and CEA), RCS 2 (decreased RDW and increased CEA, increased RDW and decreased CEA), and RCS 3 (increased RDW and CEA) subgroups based on the best optimal cutoff points of RDW and CEA for overall survival (OS). The differences in other clinicopathological parameters among RCS subgroups were calculated. Disease-free survival (DFS) and OS among these groups were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk factors for outcome were calculated by a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Seventy, 65, and 19 patients were assigned to the RCS 1, 2, and 3 subgroups, respectively. Patients ≥ 60 years (P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.004), T2 stage (P = 0.004), and IB stage (P = 0.006) were more significant in the RCS 2 or 3 subgroups. The RCS had a good area under the curve (AUC) for predicting DFS (AUC = 0.81, P < 0.001) and OS (AUC = 0.93, P < 0.001). The DFS (log-rank = 33.26, P < 0.001) and OS (log-rank = 42.05, P < 0.001) were significantly different among RCS subgroups, with RCS 3 patients displaying the worst survival compared to RCS 1 or 2 patients. RCS 3 was also an independent risk factor for both DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: RCS is a useful prognostic indicator in stage I LUAD patients, and RCS 3 patients have poorer survival. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings in the future.

[Computed tomography findings, clinicopathological features, genetic characteristics and prognosis of in situ and minimally invasive lung adenocarcinomas].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the computed tomography findings, clinicopathological features, genetic characteristics and prognosis of in situ adenocarcinoma (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) of the lung. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data including computed tomography (CT) images, histopathological findings, Ki-67 immunostaining, and genetic mutations in patients with lung adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery at our hospital between 2014 and 2019. RESULTS: Of the total of 480 patients with lung adenocarcinoma we reviewed, 73 (15.2%) had AIS (n=28) or MIA (n=45) tumors. The age of the patients with MIA was significantly younger than that of patients with AIS (P < 0.02). CT scans identified pure ground-glass nodules in 46.4% of AIS cases and in 44.4% of MIA cases. Multiple GGOs were more common in MIA than in AIS cases (P < 0.05), and bluured tumor margins was less frequent in AIS cases (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in EGFR mutations between MIA and AIS cases. A Ki-67 labeling index (LI) value ≥2.8% did not differentiate MIA from AIS. The follow-up time in MIA group was significantly shorter than that in AIS group, but no recurrence or death occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar surgical outcomes and favorable survival outcomes, the patients with AIS and MIA show differences in terms of age, CT findings, EGFR mutations and Ki-67 LI.