McGarrah, Patrick

Objectives Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) for low- and intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have been associated with limited efficacy; recent studies suggest CPIs may represent promising treatment for high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Methods We examined 57 patients with NENs who were treated with CPIs to determine if NETs and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) respond to immunotherapy. Results Patients with poorly differentiated NECs on CPI monotherapy had an objective response rate (ORR) of 0% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–4.6). Patients with poorly differentiated NECs on dual CPI therapy had an ORR of 13% and PFS of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.4–not reached [NR]). Patients with poorly differentiated NECs on CPI and cytotoxic therapy had an ORR of 36% with PFS of 4.2 months (95% CI, 1.6–NR). Well-differentiated grade 1 and 2 NETs on CPI monotherapy had an ORR of 25% with PFS NR. Well-differentiated grade 3 NETs had 0% ORR with a PFS of 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.4–4.2) on CPI monotherapy. Conclusions Checkpoint inhibitor therapy shows limited activity in patients with NENs. Future studies should identify biomarkers that can help identify patients who are likely responders to immunotherapy.

Abstract Introduction Recent classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms has defined well-differentiated high-grade neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3) as a distinct entity from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The optimal treatment for NET G3 has not been well-described. This study aimed to evaluate metastatic NET G3 response to different treatment regimens. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study of patients with NET G3 within the Mayo Clinic database. Patients’ demographics along with treatment characteristics, responses, and survival were assessed. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results Treatment data was available in 30 patients with median age of 59.5 years at diagnosis. The primary tumor was mostly pancreatic (73.3%). Ki-67 index was ≥55% in 26.7% of cases. Treatments included capecitabine + temozolomide (CAPTEM) (n = 20), lutetium 177 DOTATATE (PRRT; n = 10), Platinum-etoposide (EP; n = 8), FOLFOX (n = 7), and everolimus (n = 2). CAPTEM exhibited ORR 35%, DCR 65%, and median PFS 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 2.96–16.07). Both EP and FOLFOX showed similar radiographic response rates with ORR 25.0% and 28.6%; however, median PFS durations were quite distinct at 2.94 and 13.04 months, respectively. PRRT had ORR of 20%, DCR of 70%, and median PFS of 9.13 months. Conclusion Among patients with NET G3, CAPTEM was the most commonly used treatment with clinically meaningful efficacy and disease control. FOLFOX or PRRT are other potentially active treatment options. EP has some activity in NET G3, but responses appear to be short-lived. Prospective studies evaluating different treatments effects in patients with NET G3 are needed to determine an optimal treatment strategy. Implications for Practice High-grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3) are considered a different entity from low-grade NET and neuroendocrine carcinoma in terms of prognosis and management. The oral combination of capecitabine and temozolomide is considered a good option in the management of metastatic NET G3 and may be preferred. FOLFOX is another systemic option with reasonable efficacy. Similar to other well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy seems to have some efficacy in these tumors.

e16691 Background: Recent WHO classification of NET has defined high-grade well-differentiated NET (NET G3) as a distinct entity that is clinically different from neuroendocrine carcinoma. The optimal treatment for NET G3 has not been well-described. This study aims to evaluate NET G3 response to different treatment regimens. Methods: This is a retrospective study of NET G3 patients within the Mayo Clinic database (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota). Patient demographics along with treatment responses and survival were assessed. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Results: 71 patients with NET G3 were identified. Systemic treatment data was available in 30 patients who had a median age of 59.5 years at time of diagnosis. The primary tumor was most commonly pancreatic (73.3%). Ki 67 index was ≥55% in 26.7% of cases. 56.7% of cases had > 1 metastatic site. Treatment regimens included: capecitabine+temozolomide (CAPTEM) (n = 20), somatostatin analog (SSA) (n = 14), carboplatin/cisplatin+etoposide (EP) (n = 7), everolimus (n = 2), FOLFOX (n = 7), and lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE (PRRT) (n = 10). CAPTEM was the most commonly used regimen (10 first-line, and 10 second-line) with ORR of 35%, disease control rate (DCR) of 65%, and median PFS of 9.4 months. The table summarizes the treatment data and responses rates for the various therapies used. Conclusions: Among NET G3 patients treated at Mayo Clinic, CAPTEM was found to be the most commonly used treatment with reasonable efficacy and disease control. Other treatment options include SSA, PRRT, FOLFOX, and EP. Prospective studies evaluating different treatments effects in NET G3 patients are needed to determine an optimal treatment strategy. [Table: see text]

Objectives A platinum/etoposide doublet is standard first-line therapy for poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD NEC); however, evidence to guide treatment beyond first-line regimens is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of second-line regimens in PD NEC. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated with second-line chemotherapy for PD NEC. Inclusion criteria were previous first-line therapy with platinum/etoposide, extrapulmonary PD NEC, and follow-up data. The primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after second-line therapy. Secondary end points included OS and PFS from first-line therapy. Results Sixty-four patients were included. The median OS from initiation of second-line therapy was 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9–8.9). The median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI, 2.0–3.2). No second-line regimen showed a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS. There was a significant increase in OS for cisplatin first-line regimens compared with carboplatin (17.0 months [95% CI, 12.5–22.6] vs 11.7 months [95% CI, 8.0–14.0]). Conclusions The efficacy of current second-line therapy in PD NEC is poor. No second-line regimen showed statistically significant superiority. Cisplatin was associated with longer OS regardless of second-line regimen or age. However, unmeasured confounders such as performance status or comorbidities may explain this effect.

617 Background: Currently, there is no published data on the efficacy of SSAs for well-differentiated G3 NETs. Randomized trials have demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and limited tumor response for lower grade 1-2 NETs, but the optimal systemic therapy for metastatic/unresectable G3 NETs is unknown. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of SSAs in G3 NETs. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of Mayo Clinic patients treated with SSAs for metastatic/unresectable G3 NETs, querying data from 1992 - present. Inclusion criteria were: centrally reviewed pathology confirming well-differentiated morphology, G3 based on WHO classification, SSA monotherapy, and radiological data available to assess response. Patients who had prior lines of treatment were included as long they subsequently were treated with single-agent SSA. Poorly-differentiated tumors were excluded. The primary endpoint was PFS. Best overall response was determined by radiographic regression, stabilization, or progression of tumor size. Results: Ninety patient records were reviewed, with 14 meeting inclusion criteria (diagnosed 2014 – 2018). Median Ki-67 proliferative index was 25%. Two patients (14%) had a partial response to SSA therapy, five (36%) had stable disease, and seven (50%) had progressive disease. The estimated median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.9 – 24). Of the 7 patients with stable disease or partial response, the median time to progression was 8.7 months. Three patients had stable disease for greater than 9 months (24, 29 and 42 months, respectively). Overall survival was not estimable. There was no association of Ki-67 index with PFS based on a proportional hazards model. Conclusions: This is the first report on the efficacy of SSAs for G3 NETs. Although half of the patients in our series had at least stable disease, the PFS was modest at only 4.4 months. Given their favorable side-effect profile compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy, SSAs may present an attractive option to be further explored in a prospective fashion. We are presently updating this data by reassessing response using RECIST criteria.

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]