Abstract
Objective Recently, 60% discordancy was reported for distinction between typical carcinoid and atypical carcinoid in preoperative biopsy compared to the resection specimen. This study investigated the impact of biopsy surface size, obtained with flexible and rigid bronchoscopy, on diagnostic accuracy of typical and atypical carcinoid.
Methods Biopsy-resection paired specimens of patients referred for treatment to Amsterdam University Medical Centers were retrieved. Bronchial biopsies were obtained either by flexible or rigid biopsy. The definitive diagnosis was based on the resection specimen. Diagnosis according to the 2015 WHO classification, mitoses and necrosis in biopsy and resection specimen, were independently re-evaluated by two pathologists.
Results After screening 298 patients, 64 biopsy-resection pairs with available tissue were included of which 34 (53%) were biopsied with flexible and 30 (47%) with rigid biopsy. In 35 (55%) patients, the tumor classification between the biopsy and resection specimen was concordant. The discordance in the remaining 29 cases (45%) was caused by misclassification of atypical as typical carcinoid in bronchoscopy specimens, predominantly in small flexible biopsies (59%, p=0.021). Of biopsies measuring <2 mm2, 79% were classified as discordant and 52% of the discordant biopsies measured <4 mm2.
Conclusion Histological classification in central carcinoid tumors is discordant in 45% of the biopsies, with increasing diagnostic accuracy in larger biopsies. Distinguishing carcinoid tumor into typical or atypical carcinoid on biopsies <4 mm2 should be discouraged. A cumulative biopsy surface of at least 4 mm2 tumor is preferred to increase the diagnostic accuracy which helps in optimal treatment planning.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by a grant of ORAS (Oncological Research Albert Schweitzer Hospital).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center, IRB00002991
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosures None
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [initials]. The data are not publicly available due to [restrictions e.g. their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants].
