User login
Metastatic Pulmonary LCNEC With Pancreatic Involvement in a Young Non-Smoker: An Unusual Presentation
Background
Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung cancer subtype, comprising ~3% of lung malignancies. It commonly affects older, heavy smokers and presents at an advanced stage. Prognosis is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 15–25% in metastatic disease.
Case Presentation
A 33-year-old previously healthy male presented with a month of abdominal and lower back pain, along with significant weight loss. Lab tests revealed elevated lipase (378), and he was initially treated for acute pancreatitis. Imaging revealed a 1.9 cm pancreatic head mass and three hypodense hepatic lesions. MRI confirmed these findings but remained inconclusive. An incidental 8 mm right lower lobe pulmonary nodule led to chest CT, identifying a dominant left lower lobe mass and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, raising suspicion for primary lung malignancy. The patient was discharged but returned three days later with worsening symptoms and a lipase of 754. Endoscopic biopsy of the pancreatic mass was deferred due to ongoing pancreatitis. A liver biopsy revealed neuroendocrine differentiation, positive for CK AE1/AE3, CK7, CK19, and synaptophysin. Molecular profiling showed PD-L1 (TPS 50%), low tumor mutational burden, microsatellite stability, and high loss of heterozygosity. Bronchoscopy revealed a left hilar mass, and lymph node biopsy confirmed LCNEC (CK7+, chromogranin+, TTF- 1+, synaptophysin+), establishing a diagnosis of stage IV pulmonary LCNEC with pancreatic and liver metastases. The patient began treatment with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, carboplatin, and atezolizumab, resulting in improvement in hilar, hepatic, and pancreatic lesions on further imagings. The patient was continued on chemoimmunotherapy.
Discussion
This case highlights an uncommon presentation of LCNEC in a young, non-smoking male, initially manifesting as pancreatitis due to pancreatic metastasis. The absence of pulmonary symptoms complicated the diagnosis. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were essential. While no standardized treatment exists for LCNEC, platinum-based chemotherapy with immunotherapy remains the mainstay. PD-L1 expression may guide immunotherapy decisions.
Conclusions
Pulmonary LCNEC should be considered in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, even in young, non-smoking patients without pulmonary symptoms. Early tissue diagnosis and molecular profiling are key to guiding management.
Background
Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung cancer subtype, comprising ~3% of lung malignancies. It commonly affects older, heavy smokers and presents at an advanced stage. Prognosis is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 15–25% in metastatic disease.
Case Presentation
A 33-year-old previously healthy male presented with a month of abdominal and lower back pain, along with significant weight loss. Lab tests revealed elevated lipase (378), and he was initially treated for acute pancreatitis. Imaging revealed a 1.9 cm pancreatic head mass and three hypodense hepatic lesions. MRI confirmed these findings but remained inconclusive. An incidental 8 mm right lower lobe pulmonary nodule led to chest CT, identifying a dominant left lower lobe mass and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, raising suspicion for primary lung malignancy. The patient was discharged but returned three days later with worsening symptoms and a lipase of 754. Endoscopic biopsy of the pancreatic mass was deferred due to ongoing pancreatitis. A liver biopsy revealed neuroendocrine differentiation, positive for CK AE1/AE3, CK7, CK19, and synaptophysin. Molecular profiling showed PD-L1 (TPS 50%), low tumor mutational burden, microsatellite stability, and high loss of heterozygosity. Bronchoscopy revealed a left hilar mass, and lymph node biopsy confirmed LCNEC (CK7+, chromogranin+, TTF- 1+, synaptophysin+), establishing a diagnosis of stage IV pulmonary LCNEC with pancreatic and liver metastases. The patient began treatment with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, carboplatin, and atezolizumab, resulting in improvement in hilar, hepatic, and pancreatic lesions on further imagings. The patient was continued on chemoimmunotherapy.
Discussion
This case highlights an uncommon presentation of LCNEC in a young, non-smoking male, initially manifesting as pancreatitis due to pancreatic metastasis. The absence of pulmonary symptoms complicated the diagnosis. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were essential. While no standardized treatment exists for LCNEC, platinum-based chemotherapy with immunotherapy remains the mainstay. PD-L1 expression may guide immunotherapy decisions.
Conclusions
Pulmonary LCNEC should be considered in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, even in young, non-smoking patients without pulmonary symptoms. Early tissue diagnosis and molecular profiling are key to guiding management.
Background
Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung cancer subtype, comprising ~3% of lung malignancies. It commonly affects older, heavy smokers and presents at an advanced stage. Prognosis is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 15–25% in metastatic disease.
Case Presentation
A 33-year-old previously healthy male presented with a month of abdominal and lower back pain, along with significant weight loss. Lab tests revealed elevated lipase (378), and he was initially treated for acute pancreatitis. Imaging revealed a 1.9 cm pancreatic head mass and three hypodense hepatic lesions. MRI confirmed these findings but remained inconclusive. An incidental 8 mm right lower lobe pulmonary nodule led to chest CT, identifying a dominant left lower lobe mass and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, raising suspicion for primary lung malignancy. The patient was discharged but returned three days later with worsening symptoms and a lipase of 754. Endoscopic biopsy of the pancreatic mass was deferred due to ongoing pancreatitis. A liver biopsy revealed neuroendocrine differentiation, positive for CK AE1/AE3, CK7, CK19, and synaptophysin. Molecular profiling showed PD-L1 (TPS 50%), low tumor mutational burden, microsatellite stability, and high loss of heterozygosity. Bronchoscopy revealed a left hilar mass, and lymph node biopsy confirmed LCNEC (CK7+, chromogranin+, TTF- 1+, synaptophysin+), establishing a diagnosis of stage IV pulmonary LCNEC with pancreatic and liver metastases. The patient began treatment with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, carboplatin, and atezolizumab, resulting in improvement in hilar, hepatic, and pancreatic lesions on further imagings. The patient was continued on chemoimmunotherapy.
Discussion
This case highlights an uncommon presentation of LCNEC in a young, non-smoking male, initially manifesting as pancreatitis due to pancreatic metastasis. The absence of pulmonary symptoms complicated the diagnosis. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were essential. While no standardized treatment exists for LCNEC, platinum-based chemotherapy with immunotherapy remains the mainstay. PD-L1 expression may guide immunotherapy decisions.
Conclusions
Pulmonary LCNEC should be considered in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, even in young, non-smoking patients without pulmonary symptoms. Early tissue diagnosis and molecular profiling are key to guiding management.
Walking the Line: Balancing Autonomy and Safety at End-of-Life
Background
The goal of hospice and palliative care is to provide comfort and dignity for individuals by honoring autonomy and patient preferences at endof- life. These standards can be difficult to balance when concerns around decision-making capacity and safety arise. The Veteran’s Health Administration has numerous resources to support interdisciplinary teams. We present a case study highlighting conflict between these ethical principles
Case Presentation
Veteran is a 66-year-old male with metastatic neuroendocrine cancer to brain and co-occurring polysubstance use disorder. Veteran agreed to VA inpatient hospice due to functional decline and limited social support at home. Day passes were initially allowed but later restricted due to multiple safety concerns surrounding mental status, smoking on campus and unauthorized passes. Behaviors escalated and veteran removed secure care monitor, left the unit without notifying staff, and erratically drove off campus prompting local police involvement.
Discussion
Patient demonstrated a preference to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in person, to use his vehicle and to live at home. Given the complexity of this case, we turned to the National Center for Ethics in Health Care for input. This included guidance about legal and ethical limitations and recommendations for ongoing assessment and documentation of decisionmaking capacity and use of a surrogate.
Results
As veteran’s mental status declined, veteran no longer demonstrated the capacity to understand the safety risks of driving or living at home. His sister served as his health care agent and was opposed to home discharge due to safety concerns. The interdisciplinary team attempted to focus on respecting veteran’s dignity and autonomy as veteran approached end-oflife. Conflicts arose between the ethical pillars of autonomy, non-maleficence, community safety, and legal risks to institution. Lessons learned included the importance of daily safety huddles, ensuring secure care system functions properly, performing ongoing capacity assessments, and improving pre-admission screening.
Conclusions
Balancing autonomy and patient prefpreferences in VA hospice care demands continuous evaluation and adjustment of care plans. Legal and institutional ethics can be consulted to assist providers in formulating optimal plans and to guide use of ethical pillars within the VA framework.
Background
The goal of hospice and palliative care is to provide comfort and dignity for individuals by honoring autonomy and patient preferences at endof- life. These standards can be difficult to balance when concerns around decision-making capacity and safety arise. The Veteran’s Health Administration has numerous resources to support interdisciplinary teams. We present a case study highlighting conflict between these ethical principles
Case Presentation
Veteran is a 66-year-old male with metastatic neuroendocrine cancer to brain and co-occurring polysubstance use disorder. Veteran agreed to VA inpatient hospice due to functional decline and limited social support at home. Day passes were initially allowed but later restricted due to multiple safety concerns surrounding mental status, smoking on campus and unauthorized passes. Behaviors escalated and veteran removed secure care monitor, left the unit without notifying staff, and erratically drove off campus prompting local police involvement.
Discussion
Patient demonstrated a preference to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in person, to use his vehicle and to live at home. Given the complexity of this case, we turned to the National Center for Ethics in Health Care for input. This included guidance about legal and ethical limitations and recommendations for ongoing assessment and documentation of decisionmaking capacity and use of a surrogate.
Results
As veteran’s mental status declined, veteran no longer demonstrated the capacity to understand the safety risks of driving or living at home. His sister served as his health care agent and was opposed to home discharge due to safety concerns. The interdisciplinary team attempted to focus on respecting veteran’s dignity and autonomy as veteran approached end-oflife. Conflicts arose between the ethical pillars of autonomy, non-maleficence, community safety, and legal risks to institution. Lessons learned included the importance of daily safety huddles, ensuring secure care system functions properly, performing ongoing capacity assessments, and improving pre-admission screening.
Conclusions
Balancing autonomy and patient prefpreferences in VA hospice care demands continuous evaluation and adjustment of care plans. Legal and institutional ethics can be consulted to assist providers in formulating optimal plans and to guide use of ethical pillars within the VA framework.
Background
The goal of hospice and palliative care is to provide comfort and dignity for individuals by honoring autonomy and patient preferences at endof- life. These standards can be difficult to balance when concerns around decision-making capacity and safety arise. The Veteran’s Health Administration has numerous resources to support interdisciplinary teams. We present a case study highlighting conflict between these ethical principles
Case Presentation
Veteran is a 66-year-old male with metastatic neuroendocrine cancer to brain and co-occurring polysubstance use disorder. Veteran agreed to VA inpatient hospice due to functional decline and limited social support at home. Day passes were initially allowed but later restricted due to multiple safety concerns surrounding mental status, smoking on campus and unauthorized passes. Behaviors escalated and veteran removed secure care monitor, left the unit without notifying staff, and erratically drove off campus prompting local police involvement.
Discussion
Patient demonstrated a preference to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in person, to use his vehicle and to live at home. Given the complexity of this case, we turned to the National Center for Ethics in Health Care for input. This included guidance about legal and ethical limitations and recommendations for ongoing assessment and documentation of decisionmaking capacity and use of a surrogate.
Results
As veteran’s mental status declined, veteran no longer demonstrated the capacity to understand the safety risks of driving or living at home. His sister served as his health care agent and was opposed to home discharge due to safety concerns. The interdisciplinary team attempted to focus on respecting veteran’s dignity and autonomy as veteran approached end-oflife. Conflicts arose between the ethical pillars of autonomy, non-maleficence, community safety, and legal risks to institution. Lessons learned included the importance of daily safety huddles, ensuring secure care system functions properly, performing ongoing capacity assessments, and improving pre-admission screening.
Conclusions
Balancing autonomy and patient prefpreferences in VA hospice care demands continuous evaluation and adjustment of care plans. Legal and institutional ethics can be consulted to assist providers in formulating optimal plans and to guide use of ethical pillars within the VA framework.