2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

          The flagship journal of the Society for Endocrinology. Learn more

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Poor outcome after systemic therapy in secondary high-grade pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Longitudinal changes in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (panNET) cell proliferation correlate with fast disease progression and poor prognosis. The optimal treatment strategy for secondary panNET grade (G)3 that has progressed from a previous low- or intermediate-grade to high-grade panNET G3 is currently unknown. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to characterize treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with secondary panNET-G3. Radiological responses were assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. A total of 22 patients were included and received a median of 2 (range, 1–4) treatment lines in 14 different combinations. Median overall survival (OS) was 9 months (interquartile range (IQR): 4.25–17.5). For the 15 patients who received platinum–etoposide chemotherapy, median OS was 7.5 months (IQR: 3.75–10) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (IQR: 2.5–5.5). The 15 patients who received conventional panNET therapies achieved a median OS of 8 months (IQR: 5–16.75) and median PFS was 5.5 months (IQR: 2.75–8.25). We observed one partial response on 177Lu DOTA-TATE therapy. In conclusion, this hypothesis-generating study failed to identify any promising treatment alternatives for patients with secondary panNET-G3. This demonstrates the need for both improved biological understanding of this particular NET entity and for designing prospective studies to further assess its treatment in larger patient cohorts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predictive and prognostic factors for treatment and survival in 305 patients with advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3): the NORDIC NEC study.

              As studies on gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3) (GI-NEC) are limited, we reviewed clinical data to identify predictive and prognostic markers for advanced GI-NEC patients. Data from advanced GI-NEC patients diagnosed 2000-2009 were retrospectively registered at 12 Nordic hospitals. The median survival was 11 months in 252 patients given palliative chemotherapy and 1 month in 53 patients receiving best supportive care (BSC) only. The response rate to first-line chemotherapy was 31% and 33% had stable disease. Ki-67<55% was by receiver operating characteristic analysis the best cut-off value concerning correlation to the response rate. Patients with Ki-67<55% had a lower response rate (15% versus 42%, P<0.001), but better survival than patients with Ki-67≥55% (14 versus 10 months, P<0.001). Platinum schedule did not affect the response rate or survival. The most important negative prognostic factors for survival were poor performance status (PS), primary colorectal tumors and elevated platelets or lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. Advanced GI-NEC patients should be considered for chemotherapy treatment without delay.PS, colorectal primary and elevated platelets and LDH levels were prognostic factors for survival. Patients with Ki-67<55% were less responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy, but had a longer survival. Our data indicate that it may not be correct to consider all GI-NEC as one single disease entity.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endocr Connect
                Endocr Connect
                EC
                Endocrine Connections
                Bioscientifica Ltd (Bristol )
                2049-3614
                11 February 2022
                01 March 2022
                : 11
                : 3
                : e210604
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Sciences , Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [2 ]Department of Immunology , Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [3 ]Department of Surgical Sciences , Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to K Mollazadegan: kazhan.mollazadegan@ 123456medsci.uu.se
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9423-8970
                Article
                EC-21-0604
                10.1530/EC-21-0604
                8942326
                35148276
                2881e4dc-379a-42ee-90e2-0cfe51028232
                © The authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 25 January 2022
                : 11 February 2022
                Categories
                Research

                pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor,highgrade,systemic therapy,treatment outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log