Citations

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 .

We assessed the efficacy and safety of combining bevacizumab with temsirolimus in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. This NCI-sponsored multicenter, open-label, phase II study (NCT01010126) enrolled patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients were treated with temsirolimus and bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Temsirolimus 25 mg was administered i.v. on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle. Discontinuation of temsirolimus or bevacizumab did not require discontinuation of the other agent. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and 6-month progression-free survival rate. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this study, and 54 were evaluated for efficacy and adverse events. While median progression-free survival was 7.1 months, the median duration of treatment with temsirolimus was 3.9 months and that with bevacizumab was 3.5 months. The objective response rate of combination therapy was 2%, and 6-month progression-free survival was 48%. The most frequently reported grade 3–4 adverse events included fatigue (13%), hypertension (13%), and bleeding (13%). Close to 54% of the patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events, refusal of further treatment, or treatment delays. Three deaths occurred in the study, of which two were due to treatment-related bowel perforations. Given the minimal efficacy and increased toxicity seen with the combination of bevacizumab and temsirolimus, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Objectives Systemic therapies for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are limited. The combination of bevacizumab and temsirolimus showed significant antitumor activity, but the single-agent activity of bevacizumab was unknown. We conducted a single-arm, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab in PNETs. Methods Patients with progressive disease by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 within 7 months of enrollment were eligible for bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Adverse events were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. The primary end point was response rate (RR). Results Twenty-four patients were enrolled and followed up for a median duration of 36.1 months. Confirmed RR was 12.5%; 75.0% of patients had stable disease at 6 months. Median progression-free survival was 18.0 months; median overall survival was not reached. Common grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (45.8%) and proteinuria (8.3%). No grade 4 adverse events were observed. Conclusions Bevacizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in progressive PNETs comparable to standard targeted therapy. Although this study failed to reject the null hypothesis (RR, 10%), bevacizumab seems a reasonable monotherapy and a potential component of combination therapies given clinical activity and low rates of adverse events.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.

370 Background: Dual checkpoint inhibitor therapy with anti-PD-1 and ant-CTLA-4 therapy has shown promising results in patients with high-grade NENs, demonstrating varying response rates of 9 – 44%. More data are needed to evaluate the true response in a real-world cohort of patients. Methods: Retrospective study of all patients with high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms treated at the Moffitt Cancer Center and Mayo Clinic between 9/2017 and 7/2020 who received combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Results: 34 patients met eligibility criteria for evaluation. Patients had received an average of 2 lines of therapy prior to treatment with ipilimumab/nivolumab, including at least one cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen. 27 (79.4%) of patients had poorly differentiated NECs and 7 (20.6%) had well-differentiated high grade NETs. The most common primary site (10, 29.4%) was pancreas; other primary sites of disease included unknown primary (n = 9), colon (n = 5), uterus (n = 3), anorectum (n = 2), esophagus (n = 2), cervix (n = 1), stomach (n = 1), and small intestine (n = 1). 5 patients (14.7%) exhibited a best response of PR per RECIST 1.1 criteria, 9 (26.5%) SD, and 17 (50%) PD: 3 patients did not have a follow-up scan and discontinued treatment shortly after initiation due to clinical progression. ORR was 14.7% and DCR was 41.2%. Median PFS was 1 month (95% CI, 0.45 – 1.55); median OS from time of treatment initiation was 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.42 – 6.59) and median OS from diagnosis was 14.0 months (95% CI, 1.49 – 26.51). Median duration on treatment was 1 month (range 0 – 10 months). 26 patients discontinued treatment for progression, 4 patients for toxicity, and 4 remain on treatment at the time of data cut off. 12 patients (35%) experienced grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent toxicities: liver transaminitis, elevated blood bilirubin, arthralgia, myalgia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, lower extremity edema, confusion, diarrhea, encephalopathy, acute kidney injury, rhabdomyolysis, myocarditis, and colitis. Conclusions: The ipilimumab and nivolumab regimen has modest activity in aggressive and heavily pretreated high-grade NENs who have progressed on prior cytotoxic chemotherapy. Use of this regimen may be considered in patients with particularly aggressive, refractory high-grade NENs.

361 Background: Assessment of tumor response in extrapancreatic NETs with metastases can be very challenging. Previous studies suggest a high degree of discordance between local and central imaging reviews, which has implications for clinical practice and trial design. Methods: Serial images archived from a randomized phase II trial (A021202) of pazopanib vs placebo in progressive non-pancreatic NETs were evaluated by central review, with real-time review conducted at the time of locally interpreted progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Discordances between central (Alliance Imaging Core Laboratory) and local (investigator-reported) reviews were assessed. Scan-level and pt-level results across both treatment arms were evaluated. Kappa tests were used to test concordance based on source of review. Results: 151 pts had a total of 724 scans with response adjudication by both local and central RECIST review. Discordance was observed in both directions. Overall, 20% of scans (143/724) had discordant classifications. The most common discordances were: stable disease (SD) on local vs. PD on central review (82/143=57%), and PD on local vs. SD on central review (32/143=22%). On a pt level, 78 of 151 pts (52%) had discordant reviews; 8 had >1 type of discordance. Overall, 30% of pts (N=45) had a determination of PD on central review, but SD or better on local review, potentially resulting in excessive exposure to therapy. In contrast, 20% (N=30) were classified as PD on local read but SD or better on real-time central review (which did not necessarily translate into an abbreviated course of treatment). Cohen’s kappa statistics revealed only moderate concordance between local and central reviewers both at the scan (K=0.48, 95% CI: 0.42 – 0.55) and pt (K=0.41, 95% CI: 0.32 – 0.5) levels, with no significant influence by treatment arm, primary tumor site, tumor functionality, histology, differentiation or primary disease spread. Conclusions: Discordance was observed in both directions, where 30% of pts were potentially kept on study drug too long (based on central read), and 20% would have been taken off study treatment early for local PD were it not for real-time central review. Although this bidirectional discordance did not affect the overall findings of the PFS outcome between arms in the trial, these analyses highlight the high prevalence of discordance, the potential to negatively influence treatment duration in both directions, and the need for more straightforward methods of assessing treatment response in carcinoid. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; NETRF Investigator Award; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.

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.

4032 Background: PNET has long had few effective therapies other than chemotherapy. Placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF/PDGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). However, objective response rates (RR) with these agents are still <10%. Preclinical studies suggest enhanced anti-tumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor TEM (25 mg IV q week) and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody BEV (10 mg/kg IV q 2 weeks) in patients (pts) with well or moderately differentiated PNET and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Co primary endpoints were RR and 6-month PFS. Planned enrollment was 50 patients, with interim analysis for futility after the first 25 evaluable pts. Pts had no prior mTOR or VEGF targeted agents, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Continued octreotide was allowed, but not required. Prior interferon, embolization, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens were allowed. Results: 55 pts were eligible for response assessment. Confirmed PR was documented in 20 of 55 patients (37%). 44 of 55 (80%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. Of 49 pts evaluable for this endpoint, 12 month PFS is 49%. 15 patients remain on therapy. For evaluable patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to therapy were hypertension (18%), hyperglycemia (13%), fatigue (11%). leukopenia (9%), headache (9%), proteinuria (7%), and hypokalemia (7%). Conclusions: The combination of TEM/BEV has substantial activity in a multi-center phase II trial with RR of 37%, well in excess of single targeted agents in PNET. 6-month PFS was a notable 80% in a population of patients with RECIST criteria progression within 7 months of study entry. Phase III trials of combined VEGF/mTOR inhibition in PNET should be pursued. Clinical trial information: NCT01010126.