Chan, Jennifer A.

Abstract Incretin‐based therapies, including glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RA) and dual incretin agonists, are increasingly used for the management of diabetes, obesity, and cardiometabolic disease. Although their systemic benefits are well established, uncertainty remains regarding their safety in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), a biologically heterogeneous group of tumors with diverse molecular profiles. Preclinical studies suggest that GLP‐1 receptor activation may promote tumor growth in select receptor‐expressing models, although receptor expression varies widely across NEN subtypes and is often absent in common tumors such as ileal neuroendocrine tumors. Population‐level and retrospective clinical data have not demonstrated a consistent increase in oncologic risk but are limited by methodological constraints. In this expert consensus statement, the authors synthesize current evidence and provide a practical framework for the use of incretin mimetics in patients with NENs. The authors emphasize individualized risk assessment, shared decision‐making, and multi‐disciplinary collaboration, balancing potential but unquantified oncologic risks against substantial cardiometabolic benefits. Until prospective data are available, careful patient selection, dose optimization, and close clinical and radiologic surveillance remain essential to guide safe and effective use of these agents in this population.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies ranging from relatively indolent well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) to more aggressive poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The advent of somatostatin receptor (SSTR)–targeting therapies, particularly radioligand therapy (RLT), has transformed the therapeutic landscape of NETs. Ongoing efforts are aimed at maximizing the therapeutic benefit of RLT and include retreatment and combination strategies as well as novel α-emitter–based radiopharmaceuticals. The increasing use of molecular profiling has led to the identification of recurrent canonical alterations in pancreatic NETs, including in MEN1 , ATRX / DAXX , PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and angiogenic signaling pathways, facilitating the development of effective targeted therapies. However, despite the addition of newer targeted therapies to the therapeutic armamentarium, resistance remains inevitable and highlights the need for improved predictive markers to inform therapy sequencing and novel biomarker-selected therapies. In addition, the development of novel therapeutic strategies including SSTR antagonists, nonpeptide drug conjugates, and novel radiopharmaceutical constructs highlights the potential of biomarker-informed therapies in this space. By contrast, treatment options for NECs remain limited, with modest therapeutic benefit of platinum-based chemotherapy. The identification of delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) as a therapeutic target in high-grade NENs has led to the development of novel targeted therapies such as T-cell engagers, which have demonstrated promising activity in early phase clinical trials. In addition, other DLL3-targeting agents such as antibody-drug conjugates, trispecific engagers, and cellular therapies remain under investigation. Collectively, these advances underscore the potential of biomarker-informed treatment approaches to personalize treatment decisions and improve long-term outcomes across the NEN spectrum.

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 .

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.

4020 Background: High grade (G3) GEPNENs are a rare and heterogeneous disease entity for which there is little prospective treatment data. EP chemotherapy is the treatment standard but this may not be appropriate for all G3 GEPNEN pts. CAPTEM has demonstrated activity in G3 GEPNENs and may be a promising alternative. EA2142 aimed to determine if CAPTEM was superior to EP in pts with G3 GEPNENs. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized (1:1) phase II trial for pts with a locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic well differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or a poorly differentiated, non-small cell G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of suspected gastrointestinal origin and an ECOG PS of 0-2. Pathology must have demonstrated a Ki-67 of 20-100% or at least 10 mitoses/10 high powered field. Pts were randomized to receive capecitabine 750 mg/m2 orally every 12 hours on days 1-14 and temozolomide 200 mg/m2 orally once daily on days 10-14 of a 28-day treatment cycle (Arm A) or etoposide 100 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 with either cisplatin 25 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 of a 21-day treatment cycle (Arm B). Restaging scans were performed every 8 weeks and toxicity monitored per CTCAEv4. Final statistical plan was to accrue 80 pts to detect a 67% improvement in progression free survival (PFS) (primary endpoint) with CAPTEM as compared to EP, 80% power and one-sided significance level of 0.10. A planned interim analysis for efficacy and futility was conducted. Results: A total of 67 pts were enrolled (Arm A, n=32; Arm B, n=35). Male 58%, African American 4%, Asian 3%. Mean age 61. Among 63 eligible pts, primary tumor site pancreatic 56%, non-pancreatic 43%. Poorly differentiated 57%, well differentiated 33%, unknown 10%. Mean Ki-67 48% (Arm A), 60% (Arm B). The study was closed prior to full accrual due to futility at 57.7% information time. In the interim analysis, among 62 eligible pts, PFS, overall survival and response rate with CAPTEM were 2.43 months (mos) (95% CI 2.04, 7.72), 12.6 mos, 9% respectively vs 5.36 mos (95% CI 2.14, 7.23), 13.6 mos and 10% with EP. Toxicity was evaluable in 57 pts with Grade (G) 3/4 events occurring in 29% of pts on Arm A, 66% of pts on Arm B. G3/4 events occurring in more than 5% of pts on Arm A—febrile neutropenia (n=2); abdominal pain (n=2); diarrhea (n=2); nausea (n=2); neutropenia (n=2); dehydration (n=2) and on Arm B—anemia (n=8); febrile neutropenia (n=2); fatigue (n=2); lymphopenia (n=2); neutropenia (n=12); thrombocytopenia (n=4); leukopenia (n=6). There was one G5 event on Arm A due to sepsis. Conclusions: CAPTEM does not appear to be superior to EP chemotherapy as front-line treatment for pts with G3 NENs but does demonstrate a more favorable toxicity profile. Studies assessing G3 NET independently of G3 NEC are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02595424.

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 Patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and carcinoid syndrome experience diarrhea that can have a debilitating effect on quality of life. Diarrhea also may develop in response to other hormonal syndromes associated with NETs, surgical complications, medical comorbidities, medications, or food sensitivities. Limited guidance on the practical approach to the differential diagnosis of diarrhea in these patients can lead to delays in appropriate treatment. This clinical review and commentary underscore the complexity in identifying the etiology of diarrhea in patients with NETs. Based on our collective experience and expertise, we offer a practical algorithm to guide medical oncologists and other care providers to expedite effective management of diarrhea and related symptoms in patients with NETs.

AbstractThis article is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the medical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The guidelines panel consisted of medical oncologists, pathologists, gastroenterologists, endocrinologists, and radiologists. The panel reviewed a series of questions regarding the medical management of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors as well as questions regarding surveillance after resection. The available literature was reviewed for each of the question and panel members voted on controversial topics, and the recommendations were included in a document circulated to all panel members for a final approval.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.