Somatostatin Analogues are the ‘workhorse’ treatments for those living with NETs, particularly where certain syndromes are involved. So not just for classic NETs with Carcinoid Syndrome but also for treating the hormone overscretions caused by insulinoma, gastrinoma, glucagonoma and VIPoma (all types of pNETs) and others. They are most effective if the NETs express somatostatin receptors. They also have an anti-tumour effect but more of a slowing down of growth rather than a killing or reduction of tumour size – but there are always outliers where such effects are displayed.
Somatostatin is actually a naturally occurring hormone produced by the hypothalamus and some other tissues such as the pancreas and the gastrointestinal tract. However, it can only handle the normal release of hormones. When NET syndromes occur, the naturally occurring somatostatin is unable to cope. The word ‘analogue’ in the simplest of terms, means ‘manufactured’ and a somatostatin analogue is made to be able to cope with the excess secretion (in most cases).
Although there is hidden complexity, the concept of the drug is fairly simple. It can inhibit insulin, glucagon, serotonin, VIP, it can slow down bowel motility and increase absorption of fluid from the gut. It also has an inhibitory effect on growth hormone release from the pituitary gland (thus why it’s also used to treat a condition called Acromegaly). You can see why it’s a good treatment for those with NET syndromes, i.e. who suffer from the excess secretions of hormones from their NETs. Clearly there can be side effects as it also inhibits digestive enzymes which can contribute to, or exacerbate, gastro-intestinal malabsorption.
Please note somatostatin analogues are not chemo. There are two major types in use:
- Octreotide – or its brand name Sandostatin. It is suffixed by LAR for the ‘long acting release’ version.
- Lanreotide – brand name Somatuline (suffixed by ‘Depot’ in North America, ‘Autogel’ elsewhere)
So what’s the difference between the two?
A frequently asked question. Here’s a quick summary:
- They are made by two different companies. Novartis manufactures Octreotide and Ipsen manufactures Lanreotide. Octreotide has been around for much longer.
- The long-acting versions are made and absorbed very differently. Octreotide has a complex polymer and must be injected in the muscle to absorb properly. Lanreotide instead uses has a novel nanotube structure and is water based (click here to see a video of how this works). It is injected deep-subcutaneously and is therefore easier to absorb and is not greatly impacted if accidentally injected into muscle.
- Their delivery systems are mainly via injections but are fundamentally different as you can see from the graphic below which shows the differences between the long acting release versions. Octreotide long acting requires a pre-mix, whilst Lanreotide comes pre-filled. Please note that Ipsen is rolling out a new Lanreotide delivery system. You can read a review entitled “An International Simulated Use Study (PRESTO) to Evaluate Nurse Preferences Between the Lanreotide Autogel New Syringe and Octreotide Long-Acting Release Syringe” – click here.
- The long-acting versions are 60, 90 and 120 mg for Lanreotide and 10, 20 and 30 mg for Octreotide.
- Octreotide also has a daily version which is administered subcutaneously. Dosages range from 100-500 micrograms.
- Octreotide has something called a ‘rescue shot’ which is essentially a top up to tackle breakthrough symptoms and is similar to the daily version I mentioned above with doses ranging from 100-500 micrograms and is a subcutaneous injection.
- You can also ‘pump’ Octreotide using a switched on/off continuous infusion subcutaneously.
- Other than for lab/trial use, to the best of my knowledge, there is no daily injection, rescue shot or ‘pump’ for Lanreotide that is indicated for patient use.
- Whilst both have anti-tumour effects, there are differences in US FDA approval: Octreotide (Sandostatin) is approved for symptom control (not anti-tumor) whereas Lanreotide (Somatuline) is approved for tumour control. However, the US FDA recently added a supplemental approval for syndrome control on the basis that it is proven to reduce the need for short acting somatostatin analogues use – read more here. This supplementary approval followed the ELECT trial – results here. Read more about Lanreotide clinical trials here.
Always refer to the patient information leaflet as it is not safe to assume that all healthcare professionals are familiar with the administration. Common issues include (but are not limited to): drug temperature requirements, injection site, pinching vs stretching skin, speed of injection.
Please note a new syringe for Lanreotide has been available in June 2019. Further information will be communicated to healthcare professionals in advance of this, to enable them to inform their patients, whom have been prescribed Lanreotide. In addition, the patient information leaflet included in the packet will have clear instructions for use. There will be a prominent yellow box located on the outer carton of the medicine, alerting healthcare professionals and patients that a new syringe is contained inside. Please note that the medicine is still the same and the formulation and storage conditions have not changed.
Here are some interesting videos showing and explaining their administration:
Administering a Somatuline Depot (Lanreotide) injection:
click here or the picture below. This is the US version but the administration is the same anywhere.
Please note this is a US video thus the name Somatuline Depot rather than Autogel. Plus some of the rules regarding who and where the injection can take place may not apply to your country. Also any mention of approval wording may differ.
Administering a Sandostatin LAR (Octreotide) injection:
This link also provides guidance on the “new formulation” Octreotide. Click here.
My own experience only includes daily injections of Octreotide (Sep-Nov 2010) and Lanreotide (Dec 2010 onwards). I’ve also had continuous infusion of Octreotide in preparation for surgical or invasive procedures over the period 2010-2012 (i.e. crisis prevention). You can read about my Lanreotide experience by clicking here. If you are interested in what might be coming downstream, please see my blog entitled ‘Somatostatin Analogues and Delivery Systems in the Pipeline’.
Injection site granulomas (lumps)
The issue of ‘granulomas‘ or ‘injection site granulomas’ seems to figure in both drugs. Gluteal injection site granulomas are a very common finding on CT and plain radiographs. They occur as a result of subcutaneous (i.e. intra-lipomatous) rather than intramuscular injection of drugs, which cause localised fat necrosis, scar formation and dystrophic calcification. But no-one seems to know why they occur with somatostatin analogues.
Personally, I find that they are more conspicuous if the injection is done slightly too high which was my initial experience and they took months to fade. I opted to stand up for the first two injections and I attribute this decision for a slightly too high injection site. I now lie down which is actually recommended for the smaller and thinner patient. Although the lumps have reduced in size, I have not seen a new lump for some time indicating location might have been the cause. They sometimes show up on scans. This is not a new problem and has been highlighted for the last 10 years in academic papers. This particular paper is useful and the conclusion confirms this is not something that should worry patients too much. Read more here
Somatostatin Analogues and raised blood sugar levels
It is well documented that both Octreotide and Lanreotide can elevate blood glucose (sugar) levels. Read more in my article Diabetes – the NET Effect.
Somatostatin Analogues and thyroid levels
It is well documented that both Octreotide and Lanreotide can mess with thyroid hormone levels. Read more in my article on Don’t be underactive with your Thyroid surveillance.
At Home Services
Many areas have ‘at home’ services, read here to see if you qualify.
Please note – nothing in this article should be interpreted as an endorsement of any pharmaceutical product. This is simply my own story of receiving a recognised therapy for Neuroendocrine Cancer plus other research.
Technical Article comparing both – click here.
Thanks for reading
Please Share this post
Share on facebook Facebook Share on twitter Twitter Share on pinterest Pinterest Share on whatsapp WhatsApp Share on email Email Headline: Roughly 40% of patients