Bergsland, Emily K.

PURPOSE Patients with advanced, well-differentiated extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (epNETs) have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib, an oral multikinase inhibitor with activity against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2 and -3, PDGFR-alpha and-beta, and c-Kit, was tested for efficacy in epNET. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of pazopanib (800 mg once daily) versus placebo in low- to intermediate-grade epNET with radiologic progressive disease (PD) within 12 months of study entry. Previous somatostatin analog (SSA) was required for midgut tumors, and concurrent SSA was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD was confirmed by central review. RESULTS One hundred seventy-one patients (97 pazopanib and 74 placebo) were randomly assigned between September 2013 and October 2015. The majority had a midgut primary site (75%) and previous SSA treatment (93%). About half (49%) of the patients had functional tumors. The median follow-up was 61 months (95% CI, 60 to 63). Median PFS was 11.8 versus 7.6 months in pazopanib versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79]; P < .001); 49 placebo patients crossed over to pazopanib. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. Rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events (regardless of attribution) were higher in pazopanib versus placebo (84% v 47%; P < .001), as were grade 5 death events (8% v 0%, P = .017). CONCLUSION Pazopanib compared with placebo significantly improves PFS in patients with progressive epNET, confirming that the VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in epNET. However, after integrating the associated risks relative to the benefits, further development of pazopanib in this clinical context is not planned.

AbstractNeuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) with peritoneal metastases (PM) represent a complex clinical challenge because of low incidence and heterogeneous phenotypes. This commentary describes the results of a national consensus aimed at addressing clinical management of patients with NENs and PM. An update of the 2018 Chicago consensus guidelines was conducted with a modified Delphi technique, which encompassed two rounds of voting. The levels of agreement for various pathway blocks were assessed, and key systemic therapy concepts were summarized by content experts. Supporting evidence was evaluated via a rapid literature review. Overall, the level of evidence for the management of PM in this disease was universally low. In total, 107 participants responded in the first round, with 88 of 107 (82%) participating in the second round. Strong consensus (>90%) was achieved in five of seven (71%) and seven of seven (100%) blocks in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. A multidisciplinary approach including psychosocial and wellness assessments received a strong positive recommendation. Management of NENs with PM was organized according to disease grade and symptom profiles. In grade 1 and 2 well‐differentiated NENs, cytoreductive surgery received strong support (>95%) after the management of functional syndromes (if present). For grade 3 well‐differentiated NENs, systemic therapy is the primary recommendation, with surgical resection considered in select cases. Given the limited evidence, the consensus‐driven clinical pathway offers vital clinical guidance for the management of NENs with PM. The need for high‐quality evidence remains critical to the field.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline and recommendations for symptom management of patients with well-differentiated grade 1 to grade 3 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop a clinical practice guideline by reviewing the literature for relevant guidelines, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies to develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS The literature review identified eight guidelines, 19 systematic reviews, and three RCTs that informed the development of guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are included for carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease and carcinoid crisis, and functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor syndromes. Recommendations are provided for surgical management, liver-directed therapy, and systemic therapy options, as well as palliative care. Limited guidance is provided for sequencing of interventions. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

662 Background: Alkylating-based chemotherapy (ALK) is one of the main treatments used in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs). Its use has been associated with an increased risk of grade progression and acquisition of a hypermutator phenotype, associated with frequent alterations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes. This suggests a potential benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) that are otherwise ineffective in ALK-naïve PanNETs, which are mostly hypomutated. We aimed to describe the efficacy of ICI in patients with advanced PanNET pretreated with ALK. Methods: We assembled an international retrospective cohort of patients with advanced PanNET who received at least one cycle of ICI, and who had previously received at least 3 months of ALK. Patients with poorly-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The impact of tumor mutational burden (TMB, high being defined by >10 mut/Mb) and MMR alterations (mutations or IHC) was explored. Results: We included 39 patients (median age 58.7, male sex 62%). All PanNETs were progressive at baseline and presented a median of 3 (IQR, 2-4) metastatic sites. Tumors were predominantly classified as G2 (47%) or G3 (42%), with a median Ki-67 of 18.5% (IQR, 12-35). 23/27 patients with tumor tissue or ctDNA NGS testing had high TMB (median, 35 mut/Mb; IQR, 24-106) and 12/22 had MMR alterations. Patients had previously received an average of 14 cycles (IQR, 7-25) of ALK (temozolomide 78%, streptozotocin 18%, dacarbazine 4%), which had yielded objective response in 72% of cases. In addition, patients had received a median of 4 (IQR, 3-5) other treatments (including platinum drugs in 80% and PRRT in 51%). ICI mainly consisted in an anti-PDL1/PD1 + anti-CTLA4 combination (85%) or a monotherapy (15%), with a median of 3 (IQR, 2-8) cycles. The ORR was 18% and the disease control rate was 46%. Median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 0.62-4.96) and 6-month PFS rate was 31%. 19% of patients had grade 3-4 toxicity. Patients with high TMB had higher ORR (30% vs. 0%, p=0.03) and longer median PFS (4.9 vs. 2.1 months, p=0.004) compared with patients with low/unknown TMB. Patients with altered MMR had higher ORR (42% vs. 7%, p=0.02) and longer median PFS (8.9 vs. 2.5 months, p=0.014) compared with patients with no/unknown MMR alterations. Conclusions: While ICI shows limited efficacy in unselected patients with advanced PanNETs pretreated with ALK, it may be an effective treatment option in case of high TMB and MMR alterations.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for all cancer sites, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP‐NETs), is meant to be dynamic, requiring periodic updates to optimize AJCC staging definitions. This entails the collaboration of experts charged with evaluating new evidence that supports changes to each staging system. GEP‐NETs are the second most prevalent neoplasm of gastrointestinal origin after colorectal cancer. Since publication of the AJCC eighth edition, the World Health Organization has updated the classification and separates grade 3 GEP‐NETs from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. In addition, because of major advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for GEP‐NETs, AJCC version 9 advocates against the use of serum chromogranin A for the diagnosis and monitoring of GEP‐NETs. Furthermore, AJCC version 9 recognizes the increasing role of endoscopy and endoscopic resection in the diagnosis and management of NETs, particularly in the stomach, duodenum, and colorectum. Finally, T1NXM0 has been added to stage I in these disease sites as well as in the appendix.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)–positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

High-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms are a rare disease entity and account for approximately 10% of all neuroendocrine neoplasms. Because of their rarity, there is an overall lack of prospectively collected data available to advise practitioners as to how best to manage these patients. As a result, best practices are largely based on expert opinion. Recently, a distinction was made between well-differentiated high-grade (G3) neuroendocrine tumors and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, and with this, pathologic details, appropriate imaging practices and treatment have become more complex. In an effort to provide practitioners with the best guidance for the management of patients with high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and gynecologic system, the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society convened a panel of experts to develop a set of recommendations and a treatment algorithm that may be used by practitioners for the care of these patients. Here, we provide consensus recommendations from the panel on pathology, imaging practices, management of localized disease, management of metastatic disease and surveillance and draw key distinctions as to the approach that should be utilized in patients with well-differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumors vs poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas.

Abstract Background Grade 3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (G3 GEPNENs) are often aggressive, and the optimal treatment is unclear for this subgroup of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Temozolomide (TEM)-based regimens have been increasingly used to treat grade 1–2 NENs, but their efficacy in G3 NENs remains undetermined. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of TEM-containing regimens in advanced grade 3 GEPNENs. Materials and Methods A multicenter retrospective review (2008–2018) of patients with metastatic/unresectable G3 GEPNENs who received a TEM-containing regimen was undertaken within a North American partnership to pool data. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF). Radiologic response was extracted from local reports. Results One hundred and thirty patients in six high-volume NEN centers were included (median age 55, 64% male, 18% functional, 67% pancreatic NEN). Forty-nine percent were well-differentiated, 35% poorly differentiated, and 15% unknown based on local pathology reports. The regimen used was capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) in 92% and TEM alone in 8%. Radiological response by local assessment was seen in 36% of patients. Median TTF was 3.6 months and median overall survival (OS) 19.2 months. Six percent of patients required discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. TTF was longer in first-line treatment (7.8 months vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–2.36; p = .015) and in patients with pancreatic NENs (panNENs) compared with gastrointestinal NENs (5.8 months vs 1.8 months; p = .04). The overall response rate was higher in the first-line setting (51% vs 29%; p = .02) and in panNEN (41% vs 23%; p = .04). Conclusion This is the largest TEM treatment series in G3 NEN, involving collaboration of several major North American NEN centers as a partnership. Thirty-six percent of patients showed some degree of radiographic response, and treatment was generally well tolerated, although the median duration of response was short. Response rates and time to treatment failure were superior in the first-line setting. CAPTEM should be considered a viable treatment option in this setting. Further randomized trials are warranted. Implications for Practice Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are heterogeneous, and optimal treatment for aggressive grade 3 (G3) NENs remains undetermined. The capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) regimen has been used in low-grade pancreas NENs but there are few data for its safety and efficacy in the G3 setting. This article reports on the efficacy of temozolomide-containing regimens, particularly CAPTEM, in management of G3 NENs. The good tolerance and response rate show that CAPTEM should be considered a viable regimen in treatment of G3 NENs pending confirmatory prospective studies.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.

361 Background: Assessment of tumor response in extrapancreatic NETs with metastases can be very challenging. Previous studies suggest a high degree of discordance between local and central imaging reviews, which has implications for clinical practice and trial design. Methods: Serial images archived from a randomized phase II trial (A021202) of pazopanib vs placebo in progressive non-pancreatic NETs were evaluated by central review, with real-time review conducted at the time of locally interpreted progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Discordances between central (Alliance Imaging Core Laboratory) and local (investigator-reported) reviews were assessed. Scan-level and pt-level results across both treatment arms were evaluated. Kappa tests were used to test concordance based on source of review. Results: 151 pts had a total of 724 scans with response adjudication by both local and central RECIST review. Discordance was observed in both directions. Overall, 20% of scans (143/724) had discordant classifications. The most common discordances were: stable disease (SD) on local vs. PD on central review (82/143=57%), and PD on local vs. SD on central review (32/143=22%). On a pt level, 78 of 151 pts (52%) had discordant reviews; 8 had >1 type of discordance. Overall, 30% of pts (N=45) had a determination of PD on central review, but SD or better on local review, potentially resulting in excessive exposure to therapy. In contrast, 20% (N=30) were classified as PD on local read but SD or better on real-time central review (which did not necessarily translate into an abbreviated course of treatment). Cohen’s kappa statistics revealed only moderate concordance between local and central reviewers both at the scan (K=0.48, 95% CI: 0.42 – 0.55) and pt (K=0.41, 95% CI: 0.32 – 0.5) levels, with no significant influence by treatment arm, primary tumor site, tumor functionality, histology, differentiation or primary disease spread. Conclusions: Discordance was observed in both directions, where 30% of pts were potentially kept on study drug too long (based on central read), and 20% would have been taken off study treatment early for local PD were it not for real-time central review. Although this bidirectional discordance did not affect the overall findings of the PFS outcome between arms in the trial, these analyses highlight the high prevalence of discordance, the potential to negatively influence treatment duration in both directions, and the need for more straightforward methods of assessing treatment response in carcinoid. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; NETRF Investigator Award; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.