Hálfdánarson, Þorvarður R.

Abstract Background: Many patients use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as a rapid source of health information. This raises important questions about the reliability and effectiveness of AI chatbots in delivering accurate and understandable information. Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy, conciseness, and readability of responses from OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard to patient inquiries concerning the novel 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Two experts listed the 12 most commonly asked questions by patients on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. These twelve questions were prompted to OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. AI-generated responses were distributed using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and blindly rated by eight experts. The performances of the AI chatbots were evaluated and compared across three domains: accuracy, conciseness, and readability. Additionally, potential safety concerns associated with AI-generated answers were also examined. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were utilized to compare the performances of AI chatbots. Results: Eight experts participated in the survey, evaluating 12 AI-generated responses across the three domains of accuracy, conciseness, and readability, resulting in 96 assessments (12 responses x 8 experts) for each domain per chatbot. ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate answers than Bard (2.95 ± 0.671 vs 2.73 ± 0.732, p=0.027). Bard's responses had better readability than ChatGPT-4 (2.79 ± 0.408 vs 2.94 ± 0.243, p=0.003). Both ChatGPT-4 and Bard achieved comparable conciseness scores (3.14 ± 0.659 vs 3.11 ± 0.679, p=0.798). Experts categorized the AI-generated responses as incorrect or partially correct at a rate of 16.6% for ChatGPT-4 and 29.1% for Bard. Bard's answers contained significantly more misleading information than those of ChatGPT-4 (p = 0.039). Conclusion: AI chatbots have gained significant attention, and their performance is continuously improving. Nonetheless, these technologies still need further improvements to be considered reliable and credible sources for patients seeking medical information on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.

Metastatic CUP is complex, especially NCUP. Precision oncology is crucial for rare, aggressive cancers. A 54-year-old had HER2+ neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown origin. T-DXd treatment, response, re-challenge show importance of genomics and caution.

Radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is a standard of care for adult patients with somatostatin-receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Taking advantage of this precision nuclear medicine approach requires diligent monitoring and surveillance, from the use of diagnostic SSTR-targeted radioligand imaging for the selection of patients through treatment and assessments of response. Published evidence-based guidelines assist the multidisciplinary healthcare team by providing acceptable approaches to care; however, the sheer heterogeneity of GEP-NETs can make these frameworks difficult to apply in individual clinical circumstances. There are also contradictions in the literature regarding the utility of novel approaches in monitoring and surveilling patients with GEP-NETs receiving RLT. This article discusses the emerging evidence on imaging, clinical biochemistry, and tumor assessment criteria in the management of patients receiving RLT for GEP-NETs; additionally, it documents our own best practices. This allows us to offer practical guidance on how to effectively implement monitoring and surveillance measures to aid patient-tailored clinical decision-making.

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 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesWe assessed the accuracy of preoperative gallium‐68 DOTA‐Tyr3‐octreotate (DOTATATE) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in estimating multifocality and nodal metastases of small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (sbNETs).MethodsA multicenter analysis was performed on patients with sbNETs who underwent preoperative DOTATATE PET imaging and surgical resection, with manual palpation of the entire length of the small bowel, between January 2016 and August 2022. Preoperative imaging reports and blinded secondary imaging reviews were compared to the final postoperative pathology reports. Descriptive statistics were applied.ResultsOne‐hundred and four patients met inclusion criteria. Pathology showed 53 (51%) patients had multifocal sbNETs and 96 (92%) had nodal metastases. The original preoperative DOTATATE PET imaging identified multifocal sbNET in 28 (27%) patients and lymph node (LN) metastases in 80 (77%) patients. Based on original radiology reports, sensitivity for multifocal sbNET identification was 45%, specificity was 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 86%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 62%. For the identification of LN metastases, sensitivity was 82%, specificity was 88%, PPV was 99%, and NPV was 29%.ConclusionsAlthough DOTATATE PET imaging is specific and relatively accurate, sensitivity and NPV are insufficient to guide surgical planning. Preoperative use should not replace open palpation to identify additional synchronous lesions or to omit regional lymphadenectomy.

There is an evolving landscape of systemic combination regimens for patients with advanced well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). In this review, we provide a comprehensive outline of the existing clinical trials/prospective studies investigating these combinations. PubMed was searched using key relevant terms to identify articles referring to GEP-NETs and combination treatments. No systematic search of the literature or metanalysis of the data was performed, and we focused on the most recent literature results. Primarily, phase 1 and 2 clinical trials were available, with a smaller number of phase 3 trials, reporting results from combination treatments across a wide range of antiproliferative agents. We identified significant variability in the anti-tumor activity of the reported combinations, with occasional promising results, but only a very small number of practice-changing phase 3 clinical trials. Overall, the peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT)-based combinations (with chemotherapy, dual PPRT, and targeted agents) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent combinations with standard chemotherapy were found to have favorable results and may be worth investigating in future, larger-scale trials. In contrast, the immune-checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations were found to have limited applicability in advanced, well-differentiated GEP-NETs.

Radiopharmaceuticals are rapidly developing as a field, with the successful use of targeted beta emitters in neuroendocrine tumors and prostate cancer serving as catalysts. Targeted alpha emitters are in current development for several potential oncologic indications. Herein, we review the three most prevalently studied conjugated/chelated alpha emitters (225actinium, 212lead, and 211astatine) and focus on contemporary clinical trials in an effort to more fully appreciate the breadth of the current evaluation. Phase I trials targeting multiple diseases are now underway, and at least one phase III trial (in selected neuroendocrine cancers) is currently in the initial stages of recruitment. Combination trials are now also emerging as alpha emitters are integrated with other therapies in an effort to create solutions for those with advanced cancers. Despite the promise of targeted alpha therapies, many challenges remain. These challenges include the development of reliable supply chains, the need for a better understanding of the relationships between administered dose and absorbed dose in both tissue and tumor and how that predicts outcomes, and the incomplete understanding of potential long-term deleterious effects of the alpha emitters. Progress on multiple fronts is necessary to bring the potential of targeted alpha therapies into the clinic.