4.5 Article

Cancer stem-neuroendocrine cells in an atypical carcinoid case report

Journal

TRANSLATIONAL LUNG CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages 1157-1162

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2019.12.07

Keywords

Cancer stem cells (CSCs); neuroendocrine cells tumor (NETs); atypical carcinoid; carcinoid tumors (TCs); case report

Funding

  1. Division of Thoracic Surgery of the University Hospital of Modena
  2. Laboratory of Cellular Therapy of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
  3. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research: Departments of Excellence 2017

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung neuroendocrine cells tumor (NET) classification and diagnosis, particularly for typical and atypical carcinoids, are complicated by a variable natural history and nonspecific symptoms. Mechanisms for the development and progression of well-differentiated lung NETs are still unclear. An accurate and timely diagnosis can ensure the implementation of appropriate treatment and impact on prognosis. One of the main unclear point is the definition of these cells' composition. In fact, it is known that carcinoids are mainly constituted by neuroendocrine cells. Aim of our report is to show for the first time the presence of a high percentage of cancer stem cells (CSCs) in an atypical carcinoid. The ALDEFLUOR assay was used to identify and sort ALDH(high) and ALDH(low)( )human lung cancer cells following tissue digestion. SOX2 was additionally determined by immunohistochernistry. All specimens contained the 53.10% of ALDHhigh cells among all viable lung cancer cells, which indicates that more than half of the entire tumor cell population was composed by CSCs. As expected also in immunohistochemistry, about a half of the nuclei of the cells were positive for SOX2. We strongly support the hypothesis of the presence of cancer stem-neuroendocrine cells (CSCs-NETs) as subpopulation in these types of tumors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available