Kunz, Pamela L.

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 .

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 .

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.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the medical management and surveillance of metastatic and unresectable pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma held on October 2 and 3, 2019. The panelists consisted of endocrinologists, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, nephrologists, pathologists, and radiation oncologists. The panelists performed a literature review on a series of questions regarding the medical management of metastatic and unresectable pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma as well as questions regarding surveillance after resection. The panelists voted on controversial topics, and final recommendations were sent to all panel members for final approval.

321 Background: G3 NENs are aggressive, and optimal systemic treatment is unclear. Temozolomide (TEM)-based regimens have been used to treat grade 1-2 NETs, but their efficacy in G3 NENs (Ki-67 > 20%) remains undetermined. Aims: To assess the clinical efficacy of TEM-containing regimens in advanced grade III gastroenteropancreatic NENs (GEPNENs). Methods: A multicentre retrospective review (2008-2017) of patients with metastatic/unresectable G3 GEPNENs who received a TEM-containing regimen. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF). Radiologic response was extracted from local reports without formal RECIST criteria. Results: 118 patients in six centers were included (median age 55, 65% male, 15% functional, 75% pancreatic NEN). 57% were well-differentiated, 35% poorly-differentiated, and 18% unknown based on local pathology reports. The regimen used was CAPTEM in 93% and TEM in 7%. Best radiological responses were: complete response (1%), partial response (39%), stable disease (22%), progressive disease (31%), unknown (7%) not by RECIST. Median TTF was 150 days and median overall survival (OS) 18.0 months. Fifteen patients (14%) required dose reductions/discontinuation due to adverse events. TTF was shorter for patients on TEM alone (p = 0.02, Table 1). Well-differentiated NENs had better response rate (52% vs 26%, p = 0.02) and overall survival (30.1 vs 12.0 mo, p = 0.008) compared to poorly-differentiated NEN. Conclusions: This is the largest TEM treatment series in G3 NEN, involving collaboration of several major North American NET centers. 40% of patients showed some degree of response, and treatment was generally well-tolerated. TEM-based regimens should be considered a viable treatment option in this setting. Prospective confirmatory trials (such as EA2142) may face difficulties in accrual due to disease rarity. [Table: see text]