Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC): a population-based study addressing recent molecular-genetic advances and emerging therapeutic approaches.

BACKGROUND: Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of the lung is a rare, aggressive cancer most commonly found in the lungs but not exclusively, with a worse prognosis than non-small cell lung carcinomas. Currently, LCNEC patients are treated using small cell and non-small cell protocols. This study aims to use the SEER database to identify demographic, clinical, pathological, and therapeutic factors affecting the prognosis and survival of patients with LCNEC of the lung. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and management data of patients with lung LCNEC were extracted from the SEER database for the period 2000-2018. RESULTS: In the USA, LCNEC has a higher incidence in elderly white men: M:F ratio = 1.2:1, Caucasian: 83.3%, mean age: 67 ± 10.2 years. The most common treatment modality was chemotherapy only: 29.2%, followed by surgery: 21.5% (but in this group the statuses of chemotherapy were unknown), and combination surgery/chemotherapy: 8.8%. The overall and cause-specific 5-year survival was 17.5% (95% CI 16.3-18.8) and 21.9% (95% CI 20.5-23.4), respectively. By treatment, the best 5-year survival was for surgery alone (48%), followed by multimodality therapy (chemo + surgery + radiation) at 35% (95% CI 27-43). Age > 60 years, male gender, size > 7 cm, and nodal and liver metastasis were independent risk factors associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Lung LCNEC is an aggressive neoplasm most common in older white males that presents at an advanced stage despite small primary tumors. Most patients die within 2 years. The best predictor of survival is surgery with chemotherapy. Given its dismal prognosis, new treatment guidelines are needed for this aggressive cancer.

Pain Management in Oncology Patients Amidst the Opioid Epidemic: How To Minimize Non-Medical Opioid Use.

The opioid epidemic continues to be a significant public health concern. On the surface, it appears difficult to understate the profound consequences and unnecessary loss of life at the hands of the opioid crisis throughout the 2010s. This reality should not dissuade rigorous attention toward those who have suffered unnecessarily due to an overreaching backlash toward the opioid crisis. Oncology patients have been significantly impacted on both ends of the opioid crisis. Like other populations, cancer patients were first affected during the initial surge of opioid availability, prescription, and use at the beginning of the crisis, where opioid abuse and overdose negatively impacted cancer patient populations at similar rates as the general population. Yet, cancer patients were perhaps even more heavily affected during secondary events after the initial crisis, as opioid restrictions and the stigmatization, undoubtedly beneficial in many spaces, of opioid use became prevalent across the American society. During this second period of the opioid crisis (loosely from 2013 to the present day after the Veterans Health Administration Opioid Safety Initiative started), restrictions on opioids have significantly decreased the use and access of opioids for cancer patients. Management of pain, in general, is a complex topic, and cancer pain is no exception. Cancer patients may experience pain related to the disease itself, its treatment, or other comorbidities. This review aims to clarify the impact of reducing opioid use on cancer patients over the past eight years. We summarize the challenges facing providers as they attempt to manage cancer-related pain. Additionally, we propose tools for best practices to reduce the unnecessary suffering of cancer patients and protect against the overuse and abuse of opioids.