Lenvatinib has just completed a Phase 2 trial in Gastrointestinal (GI) and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours. The trial was sponsored by Grupo Espanol de Tumores Neuroendocrinos (Spanish NET scientific organisation) and the manufacturers. A European venture with sites in Austria, Italy, Spain, UK. Headline: The responses are better than Everolimus (Afinitor) and Sunitinib (Sutent).
What is Lenvatinib?
It is a type of targeted therapy known as a multikinase inhibitor. The brand name is ‘LENVIMA‘. These work by inhibiting multiple intracellular and cell surface kinases, some of which are implicated in tumour growth and metastatic progression of cancer, thus decreasing tumour growth and replication. A range of receptor kinases are involved in these processes, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), stem cell factor (c-KIT), Flt3, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), which can be hyperactivated during tumour formation and progression. Tumour growth may be prevented by inhibiting the action of these hyperactivated receptor kinases, and as tumour progression usually involves the action of multiple kinases rather than just one, it is logical to target multiple kinases.
The Lenvantinib mechanism of action is similar to targeted therapy drugs already in use (or in trial) for Neuroendocrine Tumours:
Sunitinib (Sutent) – a targeted therapy receptor protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. It inhibits the actions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and is an angiogenesis inhibitor (i.e. the development of blood vessels to supply the tumour with nutrients, which they need to grow). It is a mutlikinase in inhibitor.
Everolimus (Afinitor) – a targeted therapy kinase inhibitor that inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin (mTor) kinase, an enzyme required for cell growth and survival. By blocking this enzyme, the medication prevents cell division and, in turn, tumor growth. The medication can also interrupt angiogenesis.
Cabozantinib, an oral potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, MET, and AXL, and currently on trial for Neuroendocrine Cancer. Click here.
Multikinase inhibitors such as Lenvatinib, may be used to treat advanced kidney cancer as well as other specific types of cancer (in my research I also noted that in addition to kidney cancer, the drug is already approved for liver and thyroid cancers). Worth also noting that the 3 examples of targeted therapy above are not just in use/in trial for Neuroendocrine Cancer, they are also in use/in trial for others including Renal (Kidney) Cancer, Breast Cancer. Often more than one single kinase inhibitor can be given as a combo treatment, perhaps in sequence, to tackle multi kinases.
Anything special about Lenvatinib for Neuroendocrine Cancer?
Recent reports from oncology conferences indicate that Lenvatinib showed significant antitumor activity and a favourable toxicity profile in progressive advanced NETs. This is the highest reported ORR with a targeted agent, confirmed by central radiology assessment in pancreatic NETs and Gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with promising progression free survival (PFS) in a pre-treated population; further evaluation is warranted.
Adverse events were mild to moderate in 90% of patients, the most frequent being fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension.
Lenvatinib showed the highest reported overall response rate (ORR) by central radiology assessment with a targeted agent in advanced NETs:
Average 29.2%
pNETs: 40.4% (95% CI 27.3-54.9),
GI NETs: 18.5% (95% CI 9.7-31.9.
Worth noting that Everolimus and Sunitinib were approved with ORRs much less than these figures.
What’s next?
Given the responses in comparison to other approved targeted agents, a phase 3 trial should be anticipated. Studies are “currently ongoing” and “further evaluation warranted”. I will keep this article live to provide updates.
Reference material used in the compilation of this article:
1. Annals of Oncology – Efficacy of Lenvatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic (panNETs) and gastrointestinal (giNETs) grade 1/2 (G1/G2) neuroendocrine tumors: Results of the international phase II TALENT trial (GETNE 1509) 23 Oct 2018 – click here.
2. ESMO Congress 2018 – Efficacy of Lenvatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic (panNETs) and gastrointestinal (giNETs) grade 1/2 (G1/G2) neuroendocrine tumors – click here
3. Prime Oncology Slide Show – click here (useful)
4. Clinical Trials Document NCT02678780 – click here
My chest infection is now settled, as too is the excitement and apprehension behind my first ever Ga68 PET – the outcome of that is still a work in progress. Earlier this year, my thyroid ‘lesion’ on watch and wait was given a ‘damping down’ with the prescription of a thyroid hormone supplement but I await a re-ignition of that small bush fire downstream.
Bubbling behind the scenes and clamoring for attention is the spiking of my blood glucose test results and I was very recently declared ‘at risk’ for diabetes One of my followers entitled a post in my group with “The hits keep coming” in reference to encountering yet another problem in the journey with Neuroendocrine Cancer. I now know how she feels, this issue is a bit of a ‘left fielder’. However, having analysed the situation and spoken to several doctors, I can now put pen to paper.
Neuroendocrine Cancer is not a household name (…… I’m working on that) but diabetes certainly is. The World Health Organisation reports that the number of adults living with diabetes has almost quadrupled since 1980 to 422 million adults. In USA, estimates from CDC stated around 10 million people diagnosed with diabetes with a further 84 million in pre-diabetes state (at risk). In UK around 3.7 million people have diabetes with about 4 times that amount ‘at risk’. It’s a growth industry (…….. but so is NETs – in the last 40 years, the incidence of NETs is rising at a faster rate than diabetes, a disease which some writers have described as an epidemic).
With those numbers, it follows that many NET patients will be diabetic before diagnosis, some will succumb to diabetes whether they have NETs or not, and some may have an increased risk of succumbing due to their treatment. Some may even be pushed into diabetes as a direct result of their NET type or treatment. It’s important to understand diabetes in order to understand why certain types of NET and certain treatments could have an involvement.
The Pancreas
For understanding of this article, it’s worth noting the pancreas has two main functions: an exocrine function that helps in digestion and an endocrine function that regulates blood sugar. I have talked about the exocrine function in relationship to Neuroendocrine Cancer at length – check out this article on Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy. In this article, I now want to cover the issues with the endocrine function and blood sugar. First a short primer on diabetes – it is necessarily brief for the purposes of this article.
Diabetes Primer
TypeS OF DIABETES
Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes are fairly well-known. There’s actually more than two types, but these are the most common. Type 2 is the most prevalent with around 90% of diabetes cases. When you’ve got Type 1 diabetes, you can’t make any insulin at all. If you’ve got Type 2 diabetes, the insulin you make either can’t work effectively, or you can’t produce enough of it. Additional types may come up in the subsequent discussion.
What is the problem?
What all types of diabetes have in common is that they cause people to have too much glucose (sugar) in their blood. But we all need some glucose. It’s what gives us our energy. We get glucose when our bodies break down the carbohydrates that we eat or drink. And that glucose is released into our blood. We also need a hormone called insulin. It’s made by our pancreas, and it’s insulin that allows the glucose in our blood to enter our cells and fuel our bodies.
If you don’t have diabetes, your pancreas senses when glucose has entered your bloodstream and releases the right amount of insulin, so the glucose can get into your cells. But if you have diabetes, this system doesn’t work properly. Diabetes is associated by being overweight but there isn’t a 100% correlation with that. However, when an individual becomes overweight, there is an increase in free fatty acids in the blood stream which may contribute to reduced insulin sensitivity in the tissues, leading to increased glucose levels in blood.
Symptoms and diagnosis of Diabetes
Different people develop different symptoms. In diabetes, because glucose can’t get into your cells, it begins to build up in your blood. And too much glucose in your blood causes a lot of different problems. To begin with it leads to diabetes symptoms, like having to wee a lot (particularly at night), being incredibly thirsty, and feeling very tired. You may also lose weight, get infections like thrush or suffer from blurred vision and slow healing wounds.
I see these symptoms mentioned very frequently and normally people are trying to associate them with NETs and/or the treatment for NETs.
Diabetes diagnosis is normally triggered diagnosed based on blood tests such as fasting Blood Glucose (snapshot) and/or Glycated Hemoglobin (A1C) or HbA1C.
Complications
Over a long period of time, high glucose levels in your blood can seriously damage your heart, your eyes, your feet and your kidneys. These are known as the complications of diabetes.
But with the right treatment and care, people can live a healthy life. And there’s much less risk that someone will experience these complications.
What are the direct connections with Diabetes and NETs?
It’s not surprising that diabetes is mostly associated with Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Pancreas but there are other areas of risk for other types of NETs including to those who are existing diabetics – see below.
Surgery
The main types of surgery for Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Pancreas are Distal Pancreatectomy (tail), Sub-total pancreatectomy (central/tail), Classic Whipple (pancreaticoduodenectomy – head and/or neck of pancreas), Total pancreatectomy (remove the entire pancreas) or an Enucleation (scooping out the tumour with having to remove too much surrounding tissue). From the PERT article link above (exocrine function), you can see why some people need this treatment to offset issues of reduced production of pancreatic enzymes. The same issue can develop with a reduced endocrine function leading to the development of diabetes.
NET Syndromes
The different types of functional pancreatic NETs often called syndromes in their own right due to their secretory role. One might think that Insulinomas are connected to diabetes issues but this hormonal syndrome is actually associated with low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), although low blood sugar can turn out to be a complication of diabetes treatment.
A NET syndrome known as Glucagonoma (a type of functional pancreatic NET) is associated with high blood glucose levels. About 5-10% of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are Glucagonomas, tumors that produce an inappropriate abundance of the hormone glucagon. Glucagon balances the effects of insulin by regulating the amount of sugar in your blood. If you have too much glucagon, your cells don’t store sugar and instead sugar stays in your bloodstream. Glucagonoma therefore leads to diabetes-like symptoms (amongst other symptoms). In fact Glucagonoma is sometimes called the 4D syndrome – consists of diabetes, dermatitis, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and depression.
Another functional pancreatic NET known as Somatostatinoma is prone to developing insulin resistance. Somatostatinomas produce excessive amounts of somatostatin which interferes with the insulin/glucagon function and could therefore lead to diabetes.
Diabetes caused by cancer or cancer treatment
Worth noting that this type of diabetes is sometimes known as ‘Pancreatogenic diabetes’ and this is actually classified by the American Diabetes Association and by the World Health Organization as type 3c diabetes mellitus (T3cDM) and refers to diabetes due to impairment in pancreatic endocrine function due to acute cancer and cancer treatment (and several other conditions). The texts tend to point to cancers (and other conditions) of the pancreas rather than system wide. Prevalence data on T3cDM are scarce because of insufficient research in this area and challenges with accurate diabetes classification in clinical practice. (Authors note: Slightly confusing as many text say that type 3 diabetes is proposed for insulin resistance in the brain (diabetes associated with Alzheimer’s disease). There’s another term for a complete removal of the entire pancreas – Pancreoprivic Diabetes
Other treatment risks
Somatostatin Analogues (e.g. Octreotide and Lanreotide) are common drugs used to control NET Syndromes and are also said to have an anti-tumor effect. They are known to inhibit several hormones including glucagon and insulin and consequently may interfere with blood glucose levels. The leaflets for both drugs clearly state this side effect with a warning that diabetics who have been prescribed the drug, should inform their doctors so that dosages can be adjusted if necessary. The side effects lists also indicates high and low blood glucose symptoms indicating it can cause both low and high blood glucose (hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). For those who are pre-diabetic or close to pre-diabetic status, there is a possibility that the drug may push blood tests into diabetic ranges. Afinitor (Everolimus). The patient information for Afinitor (Everolimus) clearly states “Increased blood sugar and fat (cholesterol and triglycerides) levels in blood: Your health care provider should do blood tests to check your fasting blood sugar, cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the blood before you start treatment with AFINITOR and during treatment with AFINITOR” Sutent (Sunitinib). The patient information for Sutent (Sinitinib) clearly states that low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) is a potential side effect. It also advises that low blood sugar with SUTENT may be worse in patients who have diabetes and take anti-diabetic medicines. Your healthcare provider should check your blood sugar levels regularly during treatment with SUTENT and may need to adjust the dose of your anti-diabetic medicines.
In rare cases, certain NETs may produce too much Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), a substance that causes the adrenal glands to make too much cortisol and other hormones. This is often associated with Cushing’s syndrome. Cortisol increases our blood pressure and blood glucose levels with can lead to diabetes as a result of untreated Cushing’s syndrome.
Summary
I think it’s sensible for all NET patients, particularly those with involvement as per above and who are showing the signs of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, to be checked regularly for blood glucose and if necessary HbA1c. Many patient information leaflets for the common NET treatments also indicate this is necessary. Always tell your prescribing doctors if you are a diabetic or about any history of low or high blood glucose before treatment for NETs.
My brush with Diabetes (as at Jan 2019)
My blood glucose levels started to climb slightly in 2016 but HbA1c remained normal. However, an HbA1c test in early 2018 put me into pre-diabetic range (44 mmoL/moL). I explained some of the above article to my GP who is corresponding with a diabetes expert at secondary care – the expert suggested that I need to be monitored carefully as weight loss is not necessarily the best response. I have kept my NET team up to date.
At the time of updating, two separate and sequential HbA1c tests (3 month interval) came back normal at 36 mmoL/moL. I’m pragmatic enough to know that I do not need to lose weight as one of the aims of reducing my blood glucose and HbA1c levels (something emphasised by the above mentioned diabetes specialist).
I even got on my bike to do a little bit more exercise just in case!
At this point, I cannot yet say if this is the beginning of progressive Type II diabetes or if my medication is causing these spikes in my blood glucose and HbA1c. Judging by 2 x normal HbA1c, looks like the somatostatin analogue (Lanreotide in my case) may caused a spike to a pre-diabetes score. I will keep you posted.
Summary – if you are noticing these symptoms, get your blood sugar checked (with acknowledgement to Dr Pantalone from Cleveland Clinic)
1. You’re making more trips to the bathroom
Having to go to the bathroom more than normal, particularly at night, is a sign that your blood sugar might be out of whack.
Dr. Pantalone says one of his patients came in for a diagnosis after a family member noticed that he was using the bathroom during each commercial break when they watched TV.
2. You’re getting frequent urinary or yeast infections
When your blood sugar is high and your kidneys can’t filter it well enough, sugar ends up in the urine. More sugar in a warm, moist environment can cause urinary tract and yeast infections, especially in women.
3. You’re losing weight without trying
If you have diabetes, your body isn’t able to use glucose (sugar) as effectively for its energy. Instead, your body will start burning fat stores, and you may experience unexpected weight loss.
4. Your vision is getting worse
High sugar levels can distort the lenses in your eyes, worsening your vision. Changes in your eyeglass prescription or vision are sometimes a sign of diabetes.
5. You’re feeling fatigued or exhausted
Several underlying causes of fatigue may relate to diabetes/high sugar levels, including dehydration (from frequent urination, which can disrupt sleep) and kidney damage.
This feeling of exhaustion is often persistent and can interfere with your daily activities, says Dr Pantalone.
6. You’re noticing skin discoloration
Something that Dr. Pantalone often sees in patients before a diabetes diagnosis is dark skin in the neck folds and over the knuckles. Insulin resistance can cause this condition, known as acanthosis nigricans.
Researchers are testing the drug Sapanisertib to see if it can halt the progression of pancreatic NETs (pNETs) which cannot be surgically removed, have not responded to other treatment, and have spread to other parts of the body.
What is Sapanisertib?
Sapanisertib is one of a group of targeted therapy drugs that interferes with tumor progression by inhibiting an enzyme known as mTOR which a tumor cell needs for growth. In fact this is the same technique used in Afinitor (Everolimus), already approved for NETs.
It is also being tested in a number of different advanced cancers, including bladder, kidney, breast, liver, and certain types of lung cancers, among others.
The Clinical Trial
The primary goal of the phase II study is to evaluate how well pNET tumors respond to Sapanisertib. To qualify for this trial patients must have advanced pNET that cannot be surgically removed, and which have not responded to previous treatment with similar drugs. All participants will receive Sapanisertib, and will be checked periodically to see if their tumors are responding to the drug.
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided at this link which provides more details about the Sapanisertib pNET trial – click here and check the inclusion and exclusion criteria; and other data. There are 354 study locations across the USA.
This is an excellent and positive video based overview of where we are with the Management of NETs. This is a presentation from a NET Specialist (who some of you may know) presenting to a “GI Malignancies” conference. This is therefore not only awareness of NETs, it’s also some good education for non NET GI experts who may only know the very basics. Useful for patients too! I met Dr Strosberg in Barcelona (ENETS 2017) and thanked him for his presentational and scientific paper output which I often use in my articles.
The classification picture is good as it explains the different facets of NETs and how NETs are classified and categorised in a general way – not seen it done this way before. Slightly out of date as it does not adequately convey the possibility of a well differentiated high grade recently classified by the World Health Organisation – read more here.
Amazingly it is delivered without using the word ‘carcinoid’ other than in reference to syndrome, indicating it can be done and is something also being reflected in all my posts to ensure they are up to date with the latest nomenclature. It’s also a good example for GI doctors as this branch of medicine is often involved in NET diagnostics and surveillance.
Excellent update of all the trials which have introduced treatments in the last decade.
Great update and worth the 30 minutes it takes to watch – you can view it CLICK HERE.
On the heels of the approval of PRRT in USA and whilst we all wait on positive national announcements of PRRTapproval in UK and elsewhere, here’s news of a new PRRT compound undergoing a phase 3 clinical trial. Isotopen Technologien München AG (ITM), a specialized radiopharmaceutical company, today announced the enrolment of the first patient recruited in Europe for the COMPETE phase III clinical trial at theUniversity Hospital Marburg, Germany. The CEO of ITM said “This marks the starting point of COMPETE in Europe, whereby we expect a rapid increase in the number of recruits.” I actually met these guys at ENETS 2018 – sounds great.
What is the COMPETE trial?
COMPETE is led as an international pivotal multi-center phase III clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of (no-carrier-added) n.c.a.177Lu-Edotreotide (Solucin®) and the trial is comparing it to Everolimus (Afinitor). The trial runs until Dec 2020. The enrolment requires patients with inoperable, progressive, somatostatin-receptor positive neuroendocrine tumors of gastroenteric or pancreatic origin (GEP-NET). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). The study will be conducted predominantly in Europe, North America, South Africa and Australia (ITM is waiting on FDA clearance to include North American locations in the trial). The first patient to be enrolled and treated was in Australia. The clinical trial document (see references below) indicates its for non-functional GI tumours but for non-functional and functional pNETs. The list of locations can also be found in the clinical trial document. The usual inclusion/exclusion rules apply but the most notable would appear to be an exclusion for those with prior exposure to any PRRT or mTor inhibitor such as Everolimus (Afinitor).
What is 177Lu-Edotreotide (Solucin®) ?
The compound under investigation, Solucin®, is known as a Targeted Radionuclide Therapy (TRT) agent, which consists of the targeting molecule Edotreotide, an octreotide-derived somatostatin analogue and ITM´s EndolucinBeta® (no-carrier-added Lutetium-177). EndolucinBeta® is a synthetic, low-energy beta-emitting isotope of Lutetium, a recently EMA approved pharmaceutical precursor. The radiopharmaceutical Solucin® is administered as an intravenous infusion, specifically targeting and destroying the tumor cells with ionizing radiation. Solucin® received an Orphan Designation (EMA/OD/196/13) for the treatment of GEP-NET, based on early clinical experience, which has demonstrated a substantial clinical benefit with increased PFS and quality of life.
From ITM’s website … “Edotreotide contains DOTA which functions as a chelator for radioisotopes and TOC, a synthetic Somatostatin receptor ligand” (chelator and ligand are just fancy names for ‘bonding’ or ‘binding’). “The compound Edotreotide binds with high affinity Somatostatin receptors and retains both its receptor binding properties and its physiological function when labeled with 177Lu. Somatostatin receptors are predominantly overexpressed by neuroendocrine tumors. 177Lu-Edotreotide, upon binding to Somastotatin receptors in vivo is internalized and retained by tumor cells.”
“Compared to 90Y-Edotreotide, 177Lu-Edotreotide Targeted Radionuclide Therapy in NET was found to be less haematotoxic and associated with a longer median overall survival. That was highly significant for patients with low tumor uptake as well as for patients with extra hepatic and solitary metastases. In a retrospective Phase II trial 177Lu-Edotreotide showed a low uptake/dose delivered to normal organs and very high tumor-to-kidney ratio.”
Other Spin offs from ITM
Interestingly the company is also working on a ‘theranostic pair’ for imaging and treating bone metastases – see graphic below. It does not say whether this includes NET bone metastases but I don’t see why not given the connection with Solucin. However, please note this is some years away from fruition.
There’s been a lot of action in the area of what is termed Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NETs). It can therefore sometimes appear that Lung NETs are the poor relation. There are certainly some unmet needs in this area of the anatomy including a lack of research. Thus far, no prospective trials specifically for patients with lung NETs appear to have been reported.
However, there has been some recent movement. Last year, the use of Afinitor (Everolimus) was approved for progressive, non-functional NET of GI or Lung origin.
SPINET Trial for Lung NETs
In late 2016, I tipped you off about an Ipsen sponsored trial for Lung NETs involving Lanreotide (Somatuline). SPINET is a Phase 3, prospective, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Lanreotide plus “Best Supportive Care” (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC for the treatment of well-differentiated, metastatic and/or unresectable, typical or atypical lung NETs. The aim of the SPINET study is to evaluate the safety and antitumor efficacy of Lanreotide 120 mg in patients with advanced lung NETs. I suspect that many Lung NET patients are already receiving somatostatin analogues (Octreotide/Lanreotide) but prescribed only for syndrome/symptom control.
SPINET is now recruiting in many locations (see below).
The countries involved in the SPINET trial are as follows (in case my post goes out of date – see the latest update to the trials document here). Please also check the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
USA, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, UK.
In addition to the trial document linked above, you can read more about the SPINET trial here with commentary from a well-known NET Specialist – Dr Diane Reidy-Lagunes, who is the principal investigator for the trial.
How do I get on the trial?
You may be interested in this organisation – Trialbee. They are a company helping Ipsen to raise awareness of the SPINET trial using a cloud based platform to connect patients, investigators and sponsors (I’ve authenticated their participation with Ipsen). There is no fee for using their services. There’s a useful questionnaire which can help you decide if this trial is for you – here.
Please note, if you are concerned about participating in clinical trials, you should always consult your specialist for advice.
If you are a patient advocate or an advocate organisation, please share with your communities in order that Lung NET patients are at least made aware of the trial.
There’s a lot of inaccurate and out of date information out there. Some of it is propaganda but most is a combination of misunderstanding and patient forum myth spreading …….
Myth 1: All Neuroendocrine Tumours are benign
Not true. By any scientific definition, the word ‘tumour’ means ‘an abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Tumours may be benign (not cancerous), or malignant (cancerous)’. Sure, some NETs will be benign. However, The World Health Organisation (WHO) 2010 classification for digestive system is based on the concept that all NETs have malignant potential, and has therefore abandoned the division into benign and malignant NETs and tumours of uncertain malignant potential. This has been reinforced in the 2017 update to include clarification for other endocrine organ types of NET including Pheochromocytoma. Read more here. The word ‘Carcinoid’ is inextricably linked with this issue – read here why we need to stop using the term to help fight the benign myth.
Myth 2: Neuroendocrine Tumours is a terminal condition
Not true. By any definition of the word terminal in a medical diagnostic context, most NET patients have a good prognostic outlook, even those with metastatic and incurable variants of the disease. Read more here.
Graphic courtesy of Ellie McDowell
Myth 3: Carcinoid is another word for Neuroendocrine Tumours
Not true. Carcinoid is a very old term and was phased out years ago. Carcinoid is not mentioned in the latest WHO Classification schemes for Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (a term covering Neuroendocrine Tumours and Neuroendocrine Carcinoma). Unfortunately, the problem is exacerbated by organisations and individuals who still use the word. Also, those who use the following terms:
“Carcinoid Neuroendocrine”,
“Neuroendocrine Carcinoid”,
“Carcinoid and Neuroendocrine”,
“Neuroendocrine and Carcinoid”,
“Carcinoid NETs” or “CNET”
These are all contextually incorrect and misleading terms (not to mention the bad grammar). ENETS, NANETS and NCCN publications are gradually phasing the word out except in relation to Carcinoid Syndrome (and even then there could be easy solutions for this). Read more here and here.
Myth 4: All NET patients get ‘carcinoid syndrome’
Not true. Firstly, many NET cancers are non-functional; and secondly, carcinoid syndrome is only one of a number of “NET Syndromes” associated with the various types of NET. However, the issue is further confused by those who use the word ‘Carcinoid‘ to incorrectly refer to all NETs and use Carcinoid Syndrome to refer to all NET Syndromes. Read more here.
Myth 5: Neuroendocrine Neolasms are rare
Not true. As a collective grouping of cancers, this is no longer accurate. Read more here. Also check out my post about the “Invisible NET Patient Population“.
Myth 6: Steve Jobs had Pancreatic Cancer
Not true. Steve Jobs had a Neuroendocrine Tumour of the Pancreas. Ditto for a few other famous names. Read more here.
The last few years have reminded me that life is fragile
Myth 7: I’m not getting chemotherapy, I must be doing OK?
Not true. For some cancers or some sub-types of cancers, although it remains an option, chemotherapy is not particularly effective, e.g. some types of Neuroendocrine Cancer (NETs). In general, well differentiated NETs do not normally show a high degree of sensitivity to chemotherapy, although some primary locations fare better than others. However, many of the treatments for NET Cancer are somewhat harsh, have long-term consequences, and have no visible effects. NET patients are often said to “look well” but that doesn’t mean they are not struggling behind the scenes or under the surface. Read more here. P.S. Afinitor (Everolimus), Sutent (Sunitinib) are not chemo – Read more here.
Myth 8: All diarrhea is caused by carcinoid syndrome
Not true. It could be one of the other syndromes or tumor types or a side effect of your treatment. Check out this post.
Myth 9: Neuroendocrine Tumours is a ‘good cancer’
Not true. Simply, no cancer is good. Some are statistically worse than others in prognostic terms, that’s true…… but living with NETs is very often not a walk in the park. However, no one cancer is better to get than any other – they’re all bad. Read more here.
Myth 10: Every NET Patient was misdiagnosed for years
Not true. Many NET Patients are correctly diagnosed early on in their investigation and in a reasonable time. This myth is perpetuated because of two things: firstly, on forums, the ratio of long-term misdiagnosis is high creating a false perception; and secondly, the method of capturing patient surveys is not extensive enough – again creating a false perception. In fact, the latest and largest database analysis from US indicates earlier diagnosis is improving, with more and more NETs being picked up at an early stage. Read more here.
Myth 11: Somatostatin Analogues are a type of Chemotherapy
Not true. Somatostatin Analogues (e.g. Octreotide and Lanreotide) are not chemotherapy, they are hormone inhibiting drugs. They are more biotherapy. As the drugs latch onto somatostatin receptors, they are more targeted than systemic. For the record, Everolimus (Afinitor) and Sunitinib (Sutent) are not chemotherapy either. Read more here.
Myth 12: Stuart Scott (ESPN) and Audrey Hepburn had Neuroendocrine Cancer.
Not true. This is a common misunderstanding within the community. They both had Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP). Read more about PMP here.
Myth 13: I’ve been diagnosed with Neuroendocrine Tumours – my life is over
Not true. Many patients live a very long time and lead fairly normal lives with the right treatment and support. It’s difficult but I try not to use ‘I can’t’ too much. Read more here.
Myth 14: There are only a handful of Neuroendocrine specialists in the world
Not true. There are many specialists in many countries. Get links to specialists by clicking here.
Myth 15: The Ga68 PET scan is replacing the CT and MRI scan in routine surveillance for all NET Patients
Not true. It is actually replacing the Octreotide Scan for particular purposes, or will eventually. Read more by clicking here.
Myth 16: All NET Patients are Zebras
Not true. They are in fact human beings and we should treat them as such. Please don’t call me a zebra and please don’t use the term on my social media sites, I refuse to perpetuate this outdated dogma.
Myth 17: Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) is a type of Neuroendocrine Tumour
Not true. Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia are syndromes and inherited disorders. You can have MEN and not have any tumours. However, these disorders can put people at more risk of developing Neuroendocrine or Endocrine Tumours. Read morehere
Myth 18: Palliative Care means end of life or hospice care
Not true. Palliative care is specialized medical care that focuses on providing patients relief from pain and other symptoms of a serious illness. A multidisciplinary care team aims to improve quality of life for people who have serious or life-threatening illnesses, no matter the diagnosis or stage of disease. Read more here
Myth 19: Serotonin is found in foods
Not true. Serotonin is manufactured in the body. Read more here
Myth 20: NETs cannot be cured
Not true. If caught early enough, some NETs can be treated with curative intent (totally resected) with little or no further follow up. It says this in ENETS and NANETS publications which are authored by our top specialists. If we can’t believe them, who can we believe? Read more here.
Myth 21: Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy (Creon etc) is only for pancreatic patients
Not true. It’s for any patient who is exhibiting exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Read more here.
More to follow no doubt
For general cancer myths and the dangers of fake health news, please see my ARTICLE HERE
Thanks for reading
Ronny
Hey Guys, I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan
I recently wrote a blog called Neuroendocrine Cancer – Exciting Times Ahead! I wrote that on a day I was feeling particularly positive and at the time, I wanted to share that positivity with you. I genuinely believe there’s a lot of great things happening. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot still to be done, particularly in the area of diagnosis and quality of life after being diagnosed. However, this is a really great message from a well-known NET expert.
In an interview with OncLive, Jonathan R. Strosberg, MD, associate professor at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida, discussed his presentation on NETs at a recent 2016 Symposium, and shed light on the progress that has been made in this treatment landscape.
OncLive: Please highlight some of the main points from your presentation.
Strosberg: The question I was asked to address is whether we’re making progress in the management of NETs, and I think the answer is unequivocally yes. Prior to 2009, there were no positive published phase III trials.
Since then, there have been 8 trials, 7 of which have reached their primary endpoints. So it’s been a decade of significant improvement. And even though none of these studies were powered to look at overall survival as an endpoint, we’re certainly seeing evidence of improvement in outcomes.
OncLive: What are some of the pivotal agents that you feel have impacted the paradigm in the past several years?
Strosberg: The first group is the somatostatin analogs. We use them to control hormonal symptoms like carcinoid syndrome, but with the CLARINET study, we now know that they substantially inhibit tumor growth.
The next significant drug we use in this disease is everolimus (Afinitor), an oral mTOR inhibitor, which is now approved in several indications based on positive phase III studies. The first was in pancreatic NETs and subsequently, based on the RADIANT-4 trial, it was also approved in lung and gastrointestinal NETs. So that was an important advance.
The next important category of treatment is radiolabeled somatostatin analogs, otherwise known as peptide receptor radiotherapy. The one that’s been tested in a phase III trial is lutetium dotatate, also known as Lutathera. It was tested in patients with progressive midgut NETs and showed a very substantial 79% improvement in progression-free survival, and a very strong trend toward improvement in overall survival, which we hope will be confirmed upon final analysis.
OncLive: Are we getting better at diagnosing and managing the treatment of NETs?
Strosberg: Certainly. I think pathologists are better at making the diagnosis of a NET, rather than just calling a cancer pancreatic cancer or colorectal cancer. They’re recognizing the neuroendocrine aspects of the disease, and doing the appropriate immunohistochemical staining.
We also have better diagnostic tools. We used to rely primarily on octreoscan, and in many cases we still do, but there is a new diagnostic scan called Gallium-68 dotatate scan, also known as Netspot, which has substantially improved sensitivity and specificity. It’s not yet widely available, but it is FDA approved and hopefully will enable better diagnosis as well as staging in the coming years.
And, with the increase in number of phase III studies, we’re developing evidence-based guidelines, which will hopefully lead to more standardization, although knowing how to sequence these new drugs is still quite challenging.
OncLive: With sequencing, what are the main questions that we’re still trying to answer?
Strosberg: If we take, for example, NETs of the midgut, beyond first-line somatostatin analogs, physicians and patients often face decisions regarding where to proceed next, and for some patients with liver-dominant disease, liver-directed therapies are still an option.
For others, everolimus is a systemic option, and then hopefully lutetium dotatate will be an option based on approval of the drug, which is currently pending. Knowing how to choose among those 3 options is going to be a challenge, and I think there will be debates. Hopefully, clinical trials that compare one agent to another can help doctors make that choice. It’s even more complicated for pancreatic NETs. Beyond somatostatin analogs, we have about 5 choices—we have everolimus, sunitinib (Sutent), cytotoxic chemotherapy, liver-directed therapy, and peptide receptor radiotherapy. It’s even more challenging in that area.
OncLive: Are there any other ongoing clinical trials with some of these agents that you’re particularly excited about?
Strosberg: There’s a trial that is slated to take place in Europe which will compare lutetium dotatate with everolimus in advanced pancreatic NETs, and I think that’s going to be a very important trial that will help us get some information on both sequencing of these drugs, as well as the efficacy of Lutathera in the pancreatic NET population, based on well-run prospective clinical trials. I’m particularly looking forward to that trial.
OncLive: Looking to the future, what are some of the immediate challenges you hope to tackle with NETs?
Strosberg: One area of particular need is poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. That’s a field that’s traditionally been understudied. There have been very few prospective clinical trials looking at this particular population, and we’re hoping that will change in the near future. There are a number of trials taking place looking at immunotherapy drugs. If these agents work anywhere in the neuroendocrine sphere, they are more likely to work in poorly differentiated or high-grade tumors, in my opinion, given the mutational profile of these cancers. So that’s something I’m particularly looking forward to being able to offer these patients something other than the cisplatin/etoposide combination that goes back decades, and is of short-lasting duration.
See more at: http://www.onclive.com/publications/oncology-live/2016/vol-17-no-24/expert-discusses-recent-progress-in-net-management#sthash.ypkilX2A.dpuf
Thanks for reading
Ronny
Hey Guys, I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news.
Cabozantinib is an oral drug which works by blocking the growth of new blood vessels that feed a tumour. In addition to blocking the formation of new blood cells in tumours, Cabozantinib also blocks pathways that may be responsible for allowing cancers cells to become resistant to other “anti-angiogenic” drugs. It is a type of drug called a growth blocker. Cabozantinib has been studied or is already in research studies as a possible treatment for various types of cancer, including prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, thyroid cancer, lung cancer, and kidney cancer. During my research, I found that it has a connection to Medullary Thyroid Cancer (MTC) which is a type of Neuroendocrine Cancer, frequently associated with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN). Cabozantinib, under the brand name of ‘Cometriq’ was approved by the FDA in 2012 for use in MTC. Read more about Cometriq here. It’s also been approved by the FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (branded as Cabometyx). I also discovered that there is an exclusive licensing Agreement with the manufacturers (Elelixis) and Ipsen (of Lanreotide fame) to commercialize and develop Cabozantinib in regions outside the United States, Canada and Japan
Growth blockers are a type of biological therapy and include tyrosine kinase inhibitors, proteasome inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors and hedgehog pathway blockers. Cabozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). They block chemical messengers (enzymes) called tyrosine kinases. Tyrosine kinases help to send growth signals in cells so blocking them stop the cell growing and dividing. Some TKIs can block more than one tyrosine kinase and these are known as multi-TKIs.
Example action of Cabozantinib
So Capozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and is therefore a biological therapy and growth blocker just like Everolimus (Afinitor) and Sunitinib (Sutent) – some texts describe thelattero two as chemotherapy but this is just not accurate.
Very technical process but in the simplest of terms, Cabozantinib is designed to disrupt the actions of VEGF (a growth factor) and MET (a growth factor receptor) which promote spread of cancerous cells through the growth of new blood vessels. Whilst we are on this subject, please note Everolimus (Afinitor) is an mTOR inhibitor and Sunitinib (Sutent) is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Many people think these drugs are a type of chemo – that is incorrect, these are targeted biological therapies. See more on this by clicking here.
What is the current trial status of Capozantinib?
A Phase III trial is now recruiting entitled “Cabozantinib S-malate in Treating Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors Previously Treated With Everolimus That Are Locally Advanced, Metastatic, or Cannot Be Removed by Surgery”.
The trial has 172 locations across the US (see link below). The primary study (final data) is scheduled Jan 1st 2021.
You can read the trial documentation by clicking here.
A funded piece of research by the NET Research Foundation – check it out here – looks like they are trying to figure out what patients might benefit from Cabozantinib using biomarker data to predict response.
BOSTON — Cabozantinib (Cabometyx) may benefit patients with malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas, according to results of a phase II trial presented here.
Patients receiving cabozantinib (Cometriq) treatment experienced notable tumor shrinkage in the lymph nodes, liver, and lung metastases, according to Camilo Jimenez, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues.
Additionally, progression-free survival significantly increased after treated to 12.1 months (range 0.9-28) compared with just 3.2 months prior to treatment, they reported at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) annual meeting.
Cabozantinib treatment was also tied to an improvement in blood pressure and performance status, as well as remission of diabetes among these patients.
“Malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas are frequently characterized by an excessive secretion of catecholamines. [Patients] have a large tumor burden and they have a decreased overall survival,” explained Jimenez. “Tumors are frequently very vascular and frequently associated with bone metastases. In fact, up to 20% of patients who have malignancy of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas may have predominant bone metastases.”
He added that “an interesting aspect of this tumor is that C-MET receptor mutation have been found in occasional patients with malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas.”
Cabozantinib is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which also targets RET, MET, and AXL. It is approved for metastatic medullary thyroid cancer, and was more recently approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.
“MET pathway is also involved in the development of bone metastases. In fact, cabozantinib is a very effective medications for patients who have bone metastases in the context of cancer of different origins,” Jimenez said.
In order to be eligible for the trial, patients with confirmed pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma had to be ineligible for curative surgery, have ≥3 months life expectancy, no risk for perforation or fistula, and adequate organ functioning. Prior to cabozantinib initiation, patients could not receive chemotherapy or biologic agents within 6 weeks, radiation within 4 weeks, or MIBG within 6 months.
Following histological confirmation of disease progression >1 year according to RECIST 1.1, the trial included 14 patients with measurable disease and eight patients with predominant/exclusive bone metastases. Fifteen patients subsequently enrolled into the trial, six of whom had germline mutations of the SDHB gene.
All participants were all started at an initial daily dose of 60 mg of cabozantinib, which was subsequently reduced down to between 40 to 20 mg due to toxicity in 13 patients based on tolerance.
The majority of these patients with measurable disease experienced some level of disease response. Six patients reported a partial response, defined as over a 30% reduction, while three patients achieved moderate response, marked by a 15%-30% reduction. Five of the patients with predominant bone metastases reported disease stabilization, according to results of an FDG-PET scan. One patient experienced disease progression while on treatment.
Overall, cabozantinib was generally well-tolerated without any grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse events reported. Some of the most common adverse events reported included grade mild dysgeusia, hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, fatigue, weight loss, and hypertension, according to the authors.
Primary Source – American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists meeting – AACE 2018; Abstract 142. attended my Medscape writers
————————————–
Summary
I generated this blog article to add value rather than just post the outputs for your own perusal. I hope you find it useful.
Please note that taking part in a clinical trial is a big decision and must be considered carefully in conjunction with your specialists if necessary. This article is not suggesting this trial is right for you. Please check the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the trials document carefully. (Pheo/Para patients see other clinical trial link above)
I’m continually seeing certain drugs for treatment of Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) described as chemotherapy. I think there must be some confusion with more modern drugs which are more targeted and work in a different way to Chemotherapy.
I researched several sites and they all tend to provide a summary of chemotherapy which is worded like this: Chemotherapy means:
a treatment of cancer by using anti-cancer medicines called cytotoxic drugs. Cytotoxic medicines are poisonous (toxic) to cancer cells. They kill cancer cells or stop them from multiplying. Different cytotoxic medicines do this in different ways. However, they all tend to work by interfering with some aspect of how the cells divide and multiply. Two or more cytotoxic medicines are often used in a course of chemotherapy, each with a different way of working. This may give a better chance of success than using only one. There are many different cytotoxic medicines used in the treatment of cancer. In each case the one (or ones) chosen will depend on the type and stage of your cancer. Interestingly, there are several statements along the lines of ‘Cytotoxic medicines work best in cancers where the cancer cells are rapidly dividing and multiplying’, a key issue with lower grade NETs.
Well known chemotherapy treatments for NETs include (but are not limited to): Capecitabine (Xeloda), Temozolomide (Temodal), Fluorouracil (5-FU), Oxaliplatin (Eloxatin) Cisplatin, Etoposide (Etopophos, Vepesid), Carboplatin, Streptozotocin (Zanosar). Some of these may be given as a combination treatment, e.g. CAPecitabine and TEMozolomide (CAPTEM).
In the past, any medication used to treat cancer was regarded as chemotherapy. However, over the last 20 years, new types of medication that work in a different way to chemotherapy have been introduced. Many of these new types of medication are known as targeted therapies. This is because they’re designed to target and disrupt one or more of the biological processes that cancerous cells use to grow and reproduce. They are classed as biological therapy. In contrast, chemotherapy medications are mostly systemic in nature and designed to have a poisonous effect on cancerous cells, thus the term ‘cytotoxic’.
The following well known NETs treatment are not really chemotherapy and describing them in this way is not only misleading but may actually cause alarm to other patients. Furthermore, if you check any authoritative NET Cancer specialist or advocate organisation; any general and authoritative cancer site or the manufacturer’s websites; you will not see the drugs below listed within the term chemotherapy.
Somatostatin Analogues e.g. Sandostatin (Octreotide), Somatuline (Lanreotide). Although these drugs have an anti-cancer effect for some, they are in fact hormone inhibitors and are therefore a hormone therapy.
Everolimus (Afinitor). This is a targeted biological therapy or more accurate a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor. It is a type of treatment called a signal transduction inhibitor. Signal transduction inhibitors stop some of the signals within cells that make them grow and divide. Everolimus stops a particular protein called mTOR from working properly. mTOR controls other proteins that trigger cancer cells to grow. So everolimus helps to stop the cancer growing or may slow it down.
Sunitinib (Sutent). This is a targeted biological therapy or more accurate a protein (or tyrosine) kinase inhibitor. Protein kinase is a type of chemical messenger (an enzyme) that plays a part in the growth of cancer cells. Sunitinib blocks the protein kinase to stop the cancer growing. It can stop the growth of a tumour or shrink it down.
I can only speculate why some of the confusion exists but I do have some personal experience I can quote too. Firstly I believe it could be easier for some people to describe the new agents as ‘chemotherapy’ rather than explain things such as somatostatin analogues, ‘mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors’, protein kinase inhibitor or angiogenesis inhibitors. Another reason could be that health insurance companies do not have the correct database structures in place on their IT systems and therefore need to ‘pigeon hole’ drugs into the closest category they can see. Often this is chemotherapy and this only adds to the confusion. In the days when I had health insurance, my Lanreotide injections were coded as chemotherapy on all my bills. I challenged it and this is how they explained the issue.
In the last 12-24 months, there seems to have been announcement after announcement of new and/or upgraded/enhanced diagnostics and treatment types for Neuroendocrine Cancer. Scans, radionuclide therapies, combination therapies, somatostatin analogues, biological therapies, etc. Some of the announcements are just expansions of existing therapies having been approved in new (but significant) regions. Compared to some other cancers, even those which hit the headlines often, we appear to be doing not too badly. However, the pressure needs to stay on, all patients need access to the best diagnostics and treatments for them; and at the requisite time.There’s even more in the pipeline and I’m hoping to continue to bring you news of new stuff as I have been doing for the last year.
Some of these new diagnostics and treatments will benefit eligible patients who are in diagnosis/newly diagnosed and also those living with the disease. As we’re now in our awareness month, let’s recap:
Scans
Many NET Patients will undergo a nuclear scan to confirm CT results and/or to detect further neuroendocrine activity. Basically, a nuclear substance is mixed with a somatostatin analogue, injected into the patient who is then scanned using a 360-degree gamma camera. As gamma cameras are designed to show up radioactive activity; and as Neuroendocrine Tumour cells will bind to the somatostatin analogue, it follows that the pictures provided will show where Neuroendocrine tumours are located. Many people will have had an ‘Octreotide’ Scan (or more formally – Somatostatin Receptor Scintigraphy) which is still the gold standard in many areas. The latest generation of nuclear scans is based on the platform of the Gallium (Ga) 68 PET Scan. The principles of how the scan works is essentially as described above except that the more efficient radioactive/peptide mix and better scan definition, means a much better picture providing more detail (see example below). It’s important to note that positive somatostatin receptors are necessary for both scans to be effective. Europe and a few other areas have been using the Ga-68 PET scans for some time (although they are still limited in availability by sparse deployment). The latest excitement surrounding this new scan is because they are currently being rolled out in USA. Read about the US FDA approval here. You may hear this scan being labelled as ‘NETSPOT’ in USA but this is technically the name for the preparation radiopharmaceutical kit for the scan which includes a single-dose injection of the organic peptide and the radionuclide material. Take a look at a comparison of both scans here:
Octreoscan output vs Gallium 68 PET output
This slide from a recent NET Research Foundation conference confirms the power of more detailed scanning.
Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT)
Similar to above, this treatment has been in use in Europe and other places for some time but is also to be formally deployed in USA if, as is expected, the US FDA approval is positive at the end of this year (Read here). In the most basic terms, this is a treatment whereby a peptide is mixed with a radionuclide and is drip fed over a number of treatments (normally up to 4 spaced out over a year). The concept of delivery of the ‘payload’ to the tumours is actually very similar to the preparation for a radionuclide scan as described above, the key difference is the dosage and length of exposure whilst the tumours are attacked. Once again, receptors are important. The NETTER series of trials showed good results and this is an excellent addition to the portfolio for those patients who are eligible for this treatment. Fingers crossed for the US FDA announcement due by the end of this year. Also fingers crossed that PRRT returns to the NHS England & Wales portfolio of available treatments next year. The Carcinoid Cancer Foundation has an excellent summary of PRRT here.
PRRT and Chemo Combo
Whilst on this subject, I also want to highlight the innovative use of combo therapies in Australia where they are combining PRRT and Chemo (PRCRT). I blogged about this here:
Somatostatin Analogues and their Delivery Systems
Somatostatin analogues are a mainstay treatment for many NET Patients. These drugs target NET cell receptors which has the effect of inhibiting release of certain hormones which are responsible for some of the ‘syndromic’ effects of the disease. Again, receptors are important for the efficacy of this treatment. You can read the ‘geeky’ stuff on how they work here. These drugs mainly comprise Octreotide (provided by Novartis) and Lanreotide (provided by Ipsen). The latter has been around in Europe for 10 years and was introduced to North America earlier this year. Octreotide has been around for much longer, almost 17 years. When you consider these peptides have also been used to support nuclear scans that can detect the presence of tumours; and that studies have shown they also have an anti-tumour effect, they really are an important treatment for many NET Patients. I’ve blogged about new somatostatin analogues in the pipeline and you can read this here. This blog also contains information about new delivery systems including the use of oral capsules and nasal sprays (…….. very early days though).
Treatment for Carcinoid Syndrome
For maintenance and quality of life, the release of a Telotristat Ethyl for Carcinoid Syndrome is an exciting development as is the first new treatment for Carcinoid Syndrome in 17 years. This is a drug which is taken orally and inhibits the secretion of serotonin which causes some of the symptoms of the syndrome including diarrhea. It must be emphasised it’s only for treating diarrhea caused by syndrome and might not be effective for diarrhea caused by other factors including surgery. Read about how it works and its target patient group in my blog here.
Oncolytic Virus
The announcement of a clinical trial for the Oncolytic Virus (an Immunotherapy treatment)specifically for Neuroendocrine Tumours is also very exciting and offers a lot of hope. Click the photo for the last progress update.
Everolimus (Afinitor)
Earlier this year, AFINITOR became the first treatment approved for progressive, non-functional NETs of lung origin, and one of very few options available for progressive, non-functional GI NET, representing a shift in the treatment paradigm for these cancers. It’s been around for some time in trials (the RADIANT series) and is also used to treat breast and kidney cancer. It’s manufactured by Novartis (of Octreotide fame). It has some varying side effects but these appear to be tolerable for most and as with any cancer drug, they need to weighed against the benefits they bring.
In technical terms, AFINITOR is a type of drug known as an ‘mTOR’ inhibitor (it’s not a chemo as frequently stated on NET patient forums). Taken in tablet form, it works by blocking the mTOR protein. In doing so, AFINITOR helps to slow blood vessels from feeding oxygen and nutrients to the tumour.
Check out Novartis Afinitor website for more detailed information. There’s an excellent update about AFINITOR rom NET expert Dr James Yao here. The US FDA approval can be found here.
Summary
………. and relax! Wow, I’ve surprised myself by collating and revising the last 12-24 months. Dr James Yao also agrees – check out his upbeat message in the attached2 page summary. You may also like another upbeat message from Dr Jonathan Strosberg by clicking here.
Neuroendocrine Cancer – who’d have thought it? ….. a bit of a dark horse.
Thanks for reading
Ronny
Hey, I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news.
Mateon Therapeutics, Inc. a biopharmaceutical company developing vascular disrupting agents (VDAs) for the treatment of orphan oncology indications, today announced that the Markey Cancer Center at the University of Kentucky has enrolled the first patient into a new phase 1 study of CA4P in combination with everolimus for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors.
“The combination of CA4P and everolimus has the potential to decrease the ability of tumor cells to recover between CA4P treatment cycles,” stated Lowell B. Anthony, M.D., Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Medical Oncology, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky. “This is the first trial testing this hypothesis in neuroendocrine tumors – with CA4P disrupting the existing tumor blood supply and everolimus preventing a new tumor blood supply from re-forming. Our findings from this trial should lead to a larger clinical study once we have identified the optimal dose and schedule for the combination of these two agents.”
Study MCC-2016-088 is designed to demonstrate whether the addition of CA4P to everolimus may improve tumor control without additional toxicity. Everolimus has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and progressive gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors, among other indications, and is marketed by Novartis under the tradename AFINITOR®. Mateon has previously demonstrated initial evidence of efficacy for CA4P in patients with neuroendocrine tumors when CA4P was provided as a single agent.
Study MCC-2016-088 is being sponsored, funded, and conducted by the Markey Cancer Center, with Mateon providing the investigational drug. The study is designed as a single center, open label, phase 1 clinical trial for patients with grade 1-3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. In the first part of the study, up to 15 patients will be treated with everolimus in combination with two different dosing regimens of CA4P to establish appropriate CA4P dosing levels and evaluate the safety of the drug combination. The second part of the study is designed to enroll 15 additional patients for assessment of additional safety and efficacy data. Patients enrolled in MCC-2016-088 will be treated with CA4P and everolimus for 12 weeks.
For further information about the clinical trial, please visit www.clinicaltrials.gov, Study NCT03014297. (see also ‘added 23 Dec 2016’ below)
added 23 Jan 2017
Mateon Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company developing vascular disrupting agents (VDAs) for the treatment of orphan oncology indications, today announced the presentation of final data from Study OX4218 in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) at a poster session at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium being held today in San Francisco (20 Jan 17).
Study OX4218 was a multi-center, open label, phase 2 clinical trial to investigate the safety and activity of combretastatin A4-phosphate (CA4P) in the treatment of well-differentiated, low-to-intermediate-grade unresectable, recurrent or metastatic pancreatic or gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors/carcinoid (PNETs or GI-NETs) with elevated biomarkers. Following patients’ completion of Study OX4218, patients were eligible to enroll in Study OX4219, a long-term extension study, if they achieved a biomarker or symptom response. In OX4218 patients were treated with CA4P 60 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle for 3 cycles, and in OX4219 patients received CA4P maintenance on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or up to one year.
A total of 18 patients were enrolled in OX4218. One patient (6%) experienced significant symptomatic improvement as measured by ECOG Status and had a partial response per investigator-assessed RECIST and an additional 7 patients (39%) had stable disease. In addition, a majority of patients (53%) experienced an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. A statistically significant mean change in biomarkers from baseline, the primary endpoint of the study, was not achieved in OX4218 due to the small sample size along with a high intra- and inter-patient variability observed in the biomarkers. A total of 7 patients were enrolled in OX4219, of which 5 patients (71%) had stable disease, including one that continued for 14 months. The partial response and stable disease analyses, as well as other measures from the trial, suggest that CA4P monotherapy has activity in this indication.
“The results of OX4218 and OX4219 confirm that CA4P monotherapy has efficacy in the indications studied, as we have seen with the investigational drug in a number of other monotherapy trials,” said William D. Schwieterman, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Mateon. “However, we believe that the efficacy of CA4P only becomes compelling when it is used in combination with an anti-angiogenic agent, due to the complementary mechanisms of action for the two agents. Based on the evidence of efficacy observed in this trial, plus an understanding of the benefits of combination therapy, a lead investigator in this trial is sponsoring a 20 patient study in NETs using CA4P in combination with everolimus (AFINITOR®, marketed by Novartis), an anti-angiogenic agent which is already approved and commonly used in this indication.”
Overall CA4P monotherapy was well tolerated. Treatment related adverse events were reported in 77% of subjects. The most common Grade 3-5 AEs (>10%) included: anemia, abdominal pain, fatigue, hypertension, and ALT and AST increases. One Grade 5 adverse event, carcinoid syndrome, was reported and attributed to the underlying disease.
added 23 Dec 2016
There is news of a trial involving this drug which I first published in Jan 2016. The trial is based at Markey Cancer Centre and is led by Dr Lowell Anthony. The trial’s primary objective is to establish the maximum tolerated dose of the combination of Everolimus (Afinitor) plus Fosbretabulin in Neuroendocrine Tumors (Grades 1-3) who have progressed after at least one prior regimen for metastatic disease. Read more here:
The original blog published on 10 Jan 2016 follows:
It’s always nice to hear that another treatment for Neuroendocrine Cancer is in the pipeline. This drug is in the news because it has just been granted designated orphan drug status by the FDA in the US for the treatment of Neuroendocrine Tumours.
My initial thoughts are that it looks promising but it’s very early days.The new drug is formally known as Fosbretabulin Tromethamine or just Fosbretabulin.It also goes by the name of Combretastatin or CA4P which translates to Combretastatin A4-phosphate.In the most basic of terms, it’s a type of vascular disrupting agent (VDA) (note – it’s not chemotherapy).
It appears to be something currently targetted at patients with Advanced Pancreatic or GI Neuroendocrine Tumours with elevated biomarkers. This is not a new drug and has been around for some years. According to Cancer Research UK, it has already been used for advanced and recurrent ovarian and thyroid cancers.
So how does it work? The drug makes the cells that line the smallest blood vessels (capillaries) swell up and this has the effect of blocking the blood flow to a tumour. All tumours need a blood supply so that they can get the oxygen and food they need to survive and Neuroendocrine Tumours can be highly vascular. It follows that if the blood flow to a tumour is blocked, there is a chance that it could stop growing or at best kill the tumour (necrosis). Sounds like the same principles used in Liver Embolization except that this drug has a greater anatomical reach plus a vastly different delivery mechanism via a 10 minute IV infusion.
So why is it a targeted treatment? The drug will only affect blood vessels that supply cancer cells. Cells lining normal blood vessels contain a protein called actin and this protects the blood vessels from the drug’s effects. Cells lining blood vessels that supply a cancer don’t have actin.
Does it work alongside other treatments? Interestingly, it appears to be a recommendation to use the drug in combination with anti-angiogenic drugs (i.e. those that can stop the growth of new blood vessels rather than block the blood supply). Also, according to the manufacturer Mateon, Fosbretabulin has demonstrated broad potential therapeutic value when combined with mainstay oncology modes of treatment including chemotherapy, radiation therapy and the more recent ‘molecularly-targeted therapies’. In fact if you read the trial addition above dated 23 Dec 16, you will see it’s being tested alongside Everolimus (Afinitor).
So when can we expect to see this drug? Phase 2 trials were completed at the end of 2016 (results above). I guess it would still be some years ahead if they wish to proceed. You can see the trial information by clicking here.
I’ll keep this blog live adding to it when I find new or updated information.
Thank you for reading
Ronny
I don’t post everything on WordPress so please like my associated Facebook page to keep up to date (click here) (please make sure you have not already liked the page, otherwise you might end up ‘unliking’ the page 🙂 )
As of 4 Nov 15, PRRT was delisted from the NHS England Cancer Drugs Fund. Appeals were made but were rejected, despite the glowing results from the NETTER-1 trial. Although a replacement system is now in place, PRRT remains barred from routine NHS use.
Please see the following post for the very latest on PRRT worldwide – CLICK HERE
I was extremely disappointed to learn of the decision to remove PRRT (Lutetium or Yttrium) from the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) as reported by the NET Patient Foundation. You can read the detail of the decision here: CDF Statement. PRRT has regularly been described by NET specialists and patients as the “magic bullet” due to its potential to shrink or kill tumours.
This is the second Neuroendocrine Cancer treatment to be withdrawn this year, after the earlier decision on Everolimus (Afinitor) in April . In fact, the recent cuts to the CDF were described in the media as a “massacre” as the list was reduced by two-thirds. You can see the current CDF list by clicking here.
The timing of these cuts is extraordinary and when you look at the output from recent trial reports presented at the Europetwo-thirdsCongress (ECC) for both Neuroendocrine Cancer related drugs recently cut:
Everolimus
The RADIANT-4 trial said that Everolimus had a significant effect in non-functional NETs which are very difficult to treat. This is particularly important for Lung NETs as no treatment currently exists. The RADIANT-2 trial had already proven the efficacy of the drug for advanced carcinoid (in conjunction with Octreotide) and the RADIANT-3 trial proved good data for treatment with advanced functional pNETs. Read the report here.
PRRT – 177Lu-DOTATATE
The ECC also reported a significant finding from the NETTER-1 trial. Treatment with the novel peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) Lutathera significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) over Octreotide LAR (Sandostatin) in patients with advanced midgut NETs. It shows a PFS that has never been shown before in this type of cancer adding that this was significant because these patients have a real unmet medical need.
Lutathera is a 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT that targets somatostatin receptors, which are overexpressed in about 80% of NETs, to deliver cytotoxic radiation directly to the tumor – See more by clicking here.
To fully understand the background to the problem, you need to understand both PRRT and the Cancer Drugs Fund and a quick primer on both follows.
Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is a molecular therapy (also called radioisotope therapy) used to treat a specific type of cancer called neuroendocrine carcinoma or NETs (neuroendocrine tumors). PRRT is also currently being investigated as a treatment for prostate and pancreatic tumors.
In PRRT, a cell-targeting protein (or peptide) called octreotide is combined with a small amount of radioactive material, or radionuclide, creating a special type of radiopharmaceutical called a radiopeptide. When injected into the patient’s bloodstream, this radiopeptide travels to and binds to neuroendocrine tumor cells, delivering a high dose of radiation to the cancer.
The cells in most neuroendocrine tumors have an abundance (called an overexpression) of a specific type of surface receptor—a protein that extends from the cell’s surface—that binds to a hormone in the body called somatostatin. Octreotide is a laboratory-made version of this hormone that binds to somatostatin receptors on neuroendocrine tumors. In PRRT, octreotide is combined with a therapeutic dose of the radionuclides. Yttrium 90 (Y-90) and Lutetium 177 (Lu-177) are the most commonly used radionuclides.
What conditions are treated with PRRT?
PRRT may be used to treat NETs, including carcinoids, islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas, small cell carcinoma of the lung, pheochromocytoma (a rare tumor that forms in the adrenal glands), gastro-enteropancreatic (stomach, intestines and pancreas) neuroendocrine tumors, and rare thyroid cancers that are unresponsive to treatment with radioiodine.
PRRT is an option for patients: • who have advanced and/or progressive neuroendocrine tumours • who are not candidates for surgery • whose symptoms do not respond to other medical therapies.
The main goals of PRRT are to provide symptom relief, to stop or slow tumor progression and to improve overall survival.
These video’s on Nuclear Medicine are by Professor Val Lewington – the UK’s most experienced person on PRRT. I was at this presentation and she is absolutely amazing. It’s slightly dated but still very current. This presentation also covers Octreotide and Gallium 68 scans under the heading of Nuclear Medicine – if you are still unsure about PRRT or Nuclear Medicine in general, these videos are definitely worth a watch.
This is also a great source of information maintained by NET Patients in the USA. Click here
What was the Cancer Drugs Fund?
The Cancer Drugs Fund was money the UK Government has set aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and aren’t available within the NHS in England. This may be because the drugs haven’t been looked at yet. Or it may be because NICE have said that they don’t work well enough or are not cost-effective. This was introduced as a ‘political statement’ by the then Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010/11. The aim of the fund is to make it easier for people to get as much treatment as possible.
The Cancer Drugs Fund was for people who live in England. The governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland decide on how they spend money on health and so far haven’t decided to have a similar programme.
Worth noting that on 1 April 2013, NHS England took on responsibility for the operational management of the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The NHS spends approximately £1.3 billion annually on the provision of cancer drugs within routine commissioning. The CDF was established as an additional funding source to this.
There was a national list of drugs available through the fund – you may have heard this called the priority list. If you met the conditions for a drug that was on the list, you should have been able to have it on the NHS if you live in England. The Fund would also have considered applications on behalf of individual patients for other drugs that are not on the list. However, under the new system, Individual funding requests (IFRs) relating to cancer drugs will no longer be considered via the CDF process. All IFRs relating to cancer drugs will now be considered using NHS England’s single, national IFR system, which was updated in January 2016.
The new system came info force on 29 July 2016 and you can read more if you click this link
Summary
Although the decision is shocking to most, it was not totally unexpected as the Government and NHS have been hinting for sometime that the costs of the fund need to be reined in. In any case if was only ever a temporary arrangement until a another model could be put into place. There is a political element as the fund was set up by David Cameron with healthcare experts suggesting that it made no sense as a response to rising drug prices. Moreover, by topping up the fund, the same experts claimed this was making the manufacturers the real beneficiaries of the fund as they have been able to sell their drugs to the NHS at prices that are unaffordable (and therefore unsustainable) for the NHS.
UK NET patients who have advanced and/or progressive neuroendocrine tumours which cannot be removed by surgery and whose symptoms do not respond to other medical therapies, still need help.
Ironically, the UK seems to be intent on cutting provision of the treatment (at least for NHS patients) as the US is trying very hard to formally introduce it. This is a disgraceful situation and advanced Neuroendocrine Cancer patients and those who may need this treatment in the future are being terribly let down.
I will keep this blog ‘live’ in order to add information as things progress.
One of the great things about learning is that it never ends 🙂 I came across this piece of information about how chemotherapy was invented. I had no idea. It began as a deadly cloud but it eventually ended up as a silver lining for certain cancer patients. It all began with the development of mustard gas and I’m sure we’ve all seen the awful pictures of solders leading each other from the battlefield having been affected by this ‘deadly cloud‘. Let’s hope we never have to witness that again. This weapon was first used 100 years ago this week (note: blog published in Apr 2015) but out of the horror came a ‘silver lining‘ – the idea behind what is now called chemotherapy.
However, the development didn’t really begin until the second world war when two doctors from Yale University (Louis Goodman and Alfred Gilman), conducted animal and then human trials. Then in 1948, UK scientist Professor Alexander Haddow published a ground breaking piece of research in the journal Nature, showing exactly which bits of the nitrogen mustard molecule were needed to kill cancer cells. Perhaps more importantly, he also found out how to make the chemical less toxic, but with more potent cancer-killing activity. So mustard gas went from the very real battleground of the WWI trenches into the frontline of cancer treatment where it still is today.
One of the unusual aspects of Neuroendocrine Cancer is that chemotherapy is not normally considered as a ‘standard’ treatment unlike many other cancers. The exception is high grade (Grade 3) where it is often a first and/or second line therapy. Poorly differentiated Neuroendocrine disease is normally labelled as Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (NEC) but worth pointing out there is now a Grade 3 well differentiated classification known as a ‘Grade 3 NET’ rather than Grade 3 NEC. Depending on Ki67 score, there could be differing treatment options for Grade 3 NET and Grade 3 NEC. Read more in my article Staging and Grading.
The type of chemo or the combination of different treatments will often depend on the tumour type and anatomical location involved but may include (but not limited to): Capecitabine (Xeloda), Temozolomide (Temodal), Fluorouracil (5-FU), Oxaliplatin (Eloxatin) Cisplatin, Etoposide (Etopophos, Vepesid), Carboplatin, Streptozotocin (Zanosar). Some of these may be given as a combination treatment, e.g. CAPecitabine and TEMozolomide (CAPTEM). many as a combo treatment. There is a useful article explaining the role of Ki-67 in determining optimal chemotherapy in high grade neuroendocrine tumors.
Horses for Courses – Chemo is sometimes used for well differentiated lower grade NETs.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy is often inadequate for treatment of Grade 1 and 2 (well differentiated) Neuroendocrine tumours which have a low proliferation index. Chemotherapy does not appear to like their slow cytokinetic growth. However, it tends to work better on certain parts of the anatomy than others, e.g. pancreatic NETs and Lung NETs. Of interest is a statistic from NET Research Foundation indicating that 23% of patients who were to be prescribed chemo had their treatment changed to a non-chemo option following a Ga68 PET scan. Read more here.
For second line therapy (including for well differentiated NETs where other conventional treatments are not working), chemo may be given. These include (but not limited to) Capecitabine, Temozolomide, Bevacizumab, Xelox, Folfox. There are other specialist chemos for Mixed Neuroendocrine Non-Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (MiNEN).
Capecitabine plus Temozolomide (CAPTEM for short) is fast becoming the standarad chemotherapy treatment when it is required with certain lower grade NETs. Dr Robert Fine says the results of the CAPTEM trial showed “tremendous responses in every neuroendocrine tumor”. The treatment elicited a response rate of 45% and a stable disease rate of 52% including those with certain types of NETs and pituitary tumours – types of neuroendocrine tumour that are notoriously ‘chemoresistant’. You can read more about this here (click here) and you can also listen to Dr Fine enthusiastically talking about this on a short You Tube video clip – (click here). Clearly it is not going to work for all.
Other CAPTEM Resources:
There’s a very interesting report on the use of CAPTEM in NETs – (click here)
In Australia, they’re also using a combo treatment of chemo (CAPTEM) and PRRT – I blogged about this click here.
“Chinese Dumplings”
There’s also a useful surgical technique which includes the use of intra-operative chemo, known as “Chinese Dumplings” – I wrote about this click here.
Chemo Embolisation
My Oncologist did mention Chemotherapy on my initial meeting, that was a shock and realisation I had something serious. However, that never transpired but I was once scheduled to have a chemo-embolisation (or TACE, Trans-arterial Chemo Embolisation). Clearly TACE is more targeted than conventional and generally systemic chemotherapy techniques. Perhaps that my Oncologist actually meant. The chemo-embolisation never transpired either (long story).
Chemotherapy vs Targeted Biological Agents and Somatostatin Analogues
I often see people describing Somatostatin Analogues (Lanreotide/Octreotide), Afinitor (Everolimus) and Sutent (Sunitinib) as chemo but that’s isn’t technically correct, and I’ve yet to find a NET Specialist or a NET Specialist Organisation who classifies these drugs as chemo. See my article “Chemo or not Chemo” (click here).
Future of Chemo?
A lot is written about how much longer chemo will be around. It gets a bad press – I suspect mainly due to the side effects. There are suggestions that it will eventually be replaced by Immunotherapyand other treatments downstream. However, immunotherapy is really still in its infancy and there remains a lack of long term data on success rates and side effects. I suspect chemo will be around for a while longer, particularly for cancers where it has a track record of curing according to ASCO. Very recently (June 2018), cancer experts said that chemo will be around for a long time yet – read more here
None of the content of this post should be interpreted as advice or a recommendation for chemotherapy. If in doubt about suitability for any form of chemo, or the type you have been prescribed, patients should seek the advice of their treating doctor or NET specialist.
I recently wrote a blog called 
