Incidence, survival comparison, and novel prognostic evaluation approaches for stage iii-iv pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are two types of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung with poor prognosis. LCNEC has not been thoroughly studied due to its rarity, data are also lacking regarding the survival comparison and prognosis analysis of patients with locally advanced or metastatic LCNEC and SCLC.

METHODS

Data of patients with LCNEC, SCLC, and other NSCLC who were diagnosed from 1975 to 2019 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to estimate incidence. Those in stage III-IV and being diagnosed from 2010 to 2015 were utilized further to investigate their clinical characteristics and prognosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) analyses at a ratio of 1:2 was used to compare their survival outcomes. Nomograms of LCNEC and SCLC were established with internal validation, and the nomogram of SCLC was externally validated by 349 patients diagnosed in Cancer hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

The incidence of LCNEC has been increasing in recent decades, meanwhile that of SCLC and other types of NSCLC were decreasing. A total of 91,635 lung cancer patients, including 785 with LCNEC, 15,776 with SCLC, and 75,074 with other NSCLC were enrolled for further analysis. The survival of stage III-IV LCNEC resembles that of SCLC, and significantly worse than other types of NSCLC before and after PSM analysis. In pretreatment prognostic analysis, age, T stage, N stage, M stage, bone metastasis, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis were found to be associated with the survival of both LCNEC and SCLC, besides sex, bilaterality, and lung metastasis were additional prognostic factors for SCLC. Two nomograms and convenient online tools respectively for LCNEC and SCLC were established accordingly with favorable predicting accuracy of < 1-year, < 2-year, < 3-year survival probabilities. In external validation of the SCLC nomogram with a Chinese cohort, the AUCs of 1-year, 2-year and 3-year ROC were 0.652, 0.669, and 0.750, respectively. All the results of 1-, 2-, 3- year variable-dependent ROC curves verified the superior prognostic value of our nomograms for LCNEC and SCLC over the traditional T/N/M staging system.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on large sample-based cohort, we compared the epidemiological trends and survival outcomes between locally advanced or metastatic LCNEC, SCLC, and other NSCLC. Furthermore, two prognostic evaluation approaches respectively for LCNEC and SCLC might present as practical tools for clinicians to predict the survival outcome of these patients and facilitate risk stratification.