Raj, Nitya

4178 Background: In the CABINET trial, CABO significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated extrapancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET) (Chan et al., NEJM, 2025). Here we report outcomes according to functional status based on NET hormone secretion. Methods: Pts with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) before registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy not including somatostatin analogs (SSA). Pts with functional NET due to hormone secretion and non-functional NET were included. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we analyzed PFS by blinded independent central review and adverse events for pts receiving CABO vs PB based on functional status. Cox regression models were used with stratification on primary tumor site (epNET vs pNET). Subset analyses to evaluate treatment arm differences were conducted in pts with functional and non-functional tumors. Due to small numbers, separate results for those with unknown functional status are not included. Results: Of the total 298 pts enrolled in both cohorts, 74 had a functional NET (CABO, n = 47; PB, n = 27); 179 had a non-functional NET (CABO, n = 123; PB, n = 56); 45 had unknown functional status (CABO, n = 28; PB, n = 17). For functional NET, primary tumor sites were GI tract (n = 50; 68%), pancreas (n = 15; 20%), unknown (n = 4; 5%), lung (n = 3; 4%), and thymus (n = 2; 3%). Secreted hormones that were reported included serotonin (55%), somatostatin (18%), gastrin (16%), glucagon (4%), insulin (4%), ACTH (1%), and vasoactive intestinal peptide (1%). For non-functional NET, primary tumor sites were pancreas (n = 75; 42%), GI tract (n = 42; 23%), lung (n = 30; 17%), unknown (n = 17; 9%), thymus (n = 8; 4%), and other (n = 7; 4%). Concurrent SSA was received by 91% and 53% of pts with functional and non-functional NET, respectively. In both subgroups, CABO was associated with improved PFS compared to PB (for functional NET: stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.82, P = 0.012; for non-functional NET: sHR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.17-0.41, P < 0.001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) attributed to CABO vs PB in pts with functional NET included hypertension (21% vs 11%), diarrhea (9% vs 11%), and fatigue (2% vs 15%); in pts with non-functional NET, grade 3/4 AEs included hypertension (21% vs 4%) and fatigue (18% vs 4%). Conclusions: Subset analyses of the CABINET trial suggest that CABO is an effective treatment option for pts with functional and non-functional epNET or pNET. Efficacy and safety results for pts with functional or non-functional NET treated with CABO are consistent with results for the entire trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

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 .

666 Background: In the phase 3 CABINET trial (NCT03375320), cabozantinib (CABO) significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients with advanced, previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic NET (epNET) [HR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.25-0.59, P<0.0001)] and pancreatic NET (pNET) [HR 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P<0.0001)] (Chan et al., NEJM, 2024). In this analysis, we focus on outcomes of patients with epNET arising in the GI tract. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. The epNET cohort included patients with tumors arising in the GI tract (not including pancreas), lung, unknown primary, and other rare primary sites. In this subgroup analysis of the epNET cohort, patients with GI NET were included. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) prior to registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate, overall survival, safety. Results: 116 of the 203 patients in the epNET cohort had GI NET (CABO, n=70; PB, n=46). Median age was 66 yrs; females: 46%; G1/G2/G3/unknown grade: 35%/57%/6%/2%. ECOG performance status: 0/1-2: 43%/57%. White race: 86%. The most common primary tumor locations were ileum/cecum (54%), small intestine with location not specified (20%); non-cecum colon or rectum (11%), stomach (4%); duodenum (3%); jejunum and nonspecified midgut site (3% each). Prior systemic therapies included somatostatin analogs (SSA) (100%), everolimus (59%); Lu-177 dotatate (77%); temozolomide +/- capecitabine (16%). In patients with GI NET, CABO was associated with improved PFS by BICR compared to PB (stratified HR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.88, 1-sided stratified log-rank P=0.007). Median PFS with cabozantinib was 8.5 mo (95% CI, 6.0-16.7) compared to 5.6 mo (95% CI, 3.9-11.0) with PB. CABO demonstrated potential benefit in patients with midgut GI NET and across clinical factors including grade, functional status related to hormone secretion, concurrent SSA use, and prior therapy with Lu-177 dotatate or everolimus. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to therapy with CABO included hypertension (19%), diarrhea (13%), fatigue (10%). Conclusions: CABO is associated with improvement in PFS compared to PB in patients with advanced GI NET. Potential benefit was observed across clinical factors including grade, functional status, concurrent SSA, and prior treatment. The safety profile for CABO in patients with GI NET is consistent with that previously reported. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology), U10CA180888 (SWOG); Exelixis; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

Abstract Importance Mitotane (Lysodren, o,p'-DDD [1-(o-chlorophenyl)-1-(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane)] is currently the only United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency-approved product for the treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma. Observations Mitotane is challenging to administer; however, its toxicities (specifically adrenal insufficiency) are well known, and the management of adverse consequences has established approaches. While often viewed through the prism of a cytotoxic agent, it can also interfere with hormone production making it a valuable asset in managing functional ACC. A recently completed prospective trial has shed some light on its use in the adjuvant setting, but further clarity is needed. Many think mitotane has a role in the advanced or metastatic setting, although prospective data are lacking and retrospective analyses are often difficult to interpret. Conclusions and relevance When used carefully and thoughtfully, especially in patients with hormonal excess, mitotane is an important component of the treatment armamentarium for ACC.

PURPOSE Improving care transitions for patients with cancer discharged from the hospital is considered an important component of quality care. Digital monitoring has the potential to better the delivery of transitional care through improved patient-provider communication and enhanced symptom management. However, remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have not been widely implemented for oncology patients after discharge, an innovative setting in which to apply this technology. METHODS We implemented a RPM intervention which identifies medical oncology patients at discharge, monitors their symptoms for 10 days, and intervenes as necessary to manage symptoms. We evaluated the feasibility (>50% patient engagement with symptom assessment), appropriateness (symptom alerts), and acceptability (net promoter score >0.7) of the intervention and the initial effect on acute care visits and return on investment. RESULTS During the study period, January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, we evaluated 2,257 medical oncology discharges representing 1,857 unique patients. We found that 65.9% of patients discharged (N = 1,489) completed at least one symptom assessment postdischarge and of them, 45.5% (n = 678) generated a severe symptom alert that we helped to manage. Patients expressed high satisfaction with the intervention with a net promoter score of 84%. In preliminary analysis of patients with GI malignancies (n = 449), we found a nonsignificant decrease in 30-day readmissions for the intervention cohort (n = 269) by 5.8% as compared with the control (n = 180; from 33.3% to 27.5%; P = .22). CONCLUSION Digital transitional care management was feasible and demonstrated that patients transitioning from the hospital to home have a substantial symptom burden. The intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction but will require further refinement and evaluation to increase its impact on 30-day readmission.

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.

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]