2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in gastroenteropancreatic NEN G3: a multicenter cohort study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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

          Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors grade 1–2 (G1–G2). However, its possible benefit in high-grade gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN G3) is largely unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the benefits and side effects of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. We performed a retrospective cohort study at 12 centers to assess the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT in patients with GEP NEN G3. Outcomes were response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. We included 149 patients (primary tumor: pancreatic n = 89, gastrointestinal n = 34, unknown n = 26). PRRT was first-line ( n = 30), second-line ( n = 62) or later-line treatment ( n = 57). Of 114 patients evaluated, 1% had complete response, 41% partial response, 38% stable disease and 20% progressive disease. Of 104 patients with documented progressive disease before PRRT, disease control rate was 69%. The total cohort had median PFS of 14 months and OS of 29 months. Ki-67 21–54% ( n = 125) vs Ki-67 ≥55% ( n = 23): PFS 16 vs 6 months ( P < 0.001) and OS 31 vs 9 months ( P < 0.001). Well ( n = 60) vs poorly differentiated NEN ( n = 62): PFS 19 vs 8 months ( P < 0.001) and OS 44 vs 19 months ( P < 0.001). Grade 3–4 hematological or renal toxicity occurred in 17% of patients. This large multicenter cohort of patients with GEP NEN G3 treated with PRRT demonstrates promising response rates, disease control rates, PFS and OS as well as toxicity in patients with mainly progressive disease. Based on these results, PRRT may be considered for patients with GEP NEN G3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Phase 3 Trial of (177)Lu-Dotatate for Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumors.

            Background Patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumors who have had disease progression during first-line somatostatin analogue therapy have limited therapeutic options. This randomized, controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lutetium-177 ((177)Lu)-Dotatate in patients with advanced, progressive, somatostatin-receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Methods We randomly assigned 229 patients who had well-differentiated, metastatic midgut neuroendocrine tumors to receive either (177)Lu-Dotatate (116 patients) at a dose of 7.4 GBq every 8 weeks (four intravenous infusions, plus best supportive care including octreotide long-acting repeatable [LAR] administered intramuscularly at a dose of 30 mg) ((177)Lu-Dotatate group) or octreotide LAR alone (113 patients) administered intramuscularly at a dose of 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and the side-effect profile. The final analysis of overall survival will be conducted in the future as specified in the protocol; a prespecified interim analysis of overall survival was conducted and is reported here. Results At the data-cutoff date for the primary analysis, the estimated rate of progression-free survival at month 20 was 65.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.0 to 76.8) in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group and 10.8% (95% CI, 3.5 to 23.0) in the control group. The response rate was 18% in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group versus 3% in the control group (P<0.001). In the planned interim analysis of overall survival, 14 deaths occurred in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group and 26 in the control group (P=0.004). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia occurred in 1%, 2%, and 9%, respectively, of patients in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group as compared with no patients in the control group, with no evidence of renal toxic effects during the observed time frame. Conclusions Treatment with (177)Lu-Dotatate resulted in markedly longer progression-free survival and a significantly higher response rate than high-dose octreotide LAR among patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Preliminary evidence of an overall survival benefit was seen in an interim analysis; confirmation will be required in the planned final analysis. Clinically significant myelosuppression occurred in less than 10% of patients in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group. (Funded by Advanced Accelerator Applications; NETTER-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578239 ; EudraCT number 2011-005049-11 .).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Treatment with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [177 Lu-DOTA 0,Tyr3]octreotate: toxicity, efficacy, and survival.

              Despite the fact that most gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs) are slow-growing, median overall survival (OS) in patients with liver metastases is 2 to 4 years. In metastatic disease, cytoreductive therapeutic options are limited. A relatively new therapy is peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. Here we report on the toxicity and efficacy of this treatment, performed in over 500 patients. Patients were treated up to a cumulative dose of 750 to 800 mCi (27.8-29.6 GBq), usually in four treatment cycles, with treatment intervals of 6 to 10 weeks. Toxicity analysis was done in 504 patients, and efficacy analysis in 310 patients. Any hematologic toxicity grade 3 or 4 occurred after 3.6% of administrations. Serious adverse events that were likely attributable to the treatment were myelodysplastic syndrome in three patients, and temporary, nonfatal, liver toxicity in two patients. Complete and partial tumor remissions occurred in 2% and 28% of 310 GEPNET patients, respectively. Minor tumor response (decrease in size > 25% and < 50%) occurred in 16%. Median time to progression was 40 months. Median OS from start of treatment was 46 months, median OS from diagnosis was 128 months. Compared with historical controls, there was a survival benefit of 40 to 72 months from diagnosis. Treatment with [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate has few adverse effects. Tumor response rates and progression-free survival compare favorably to the limited number of alternative treatment modalities. Compared with historical controls, there is a benefit in OS from time of diagnosis of several years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endocrine-Related Cancer
                Bioscientifica
                1351-0088
                1479-6821
                February 2019
                February 2019
                February 2019
                February 2019
                : 26
                : 2
                : 227-239
                Affiliations
                [1 ]1Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [2 ]2Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cluster for Molecular Imaging, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [3 ]3Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
                [4 ]4Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]5Neuroendocrine Tumor Unit, Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
                [6 ]6Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
                [7 ]7Division of Nuclear Medicine, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
                [8 ]8Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [9 ]9Medical School, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
                [10 ]10Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
                [11 ]11Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Gießen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany
                [12 ]12Department of Oncology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
                [13 ]13Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [14 ]14Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [15 ]15Department of Oncology and Radiation Therapy Unit, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
                [16 ]16Departments of Surgical Gastroenterology and Clinical Endocrinology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [17 ]17Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
                [18 ]18Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                Article
                10.1530/ERC-18-0424
                30540557
                5a78a681-9254-4098-b06a-48041f833909
                © 2019

                Free to read

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article