Proton Pump Inhibitors – the NET Effect


Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce the production of acid by blocking the enzyme in the wall of the stomach that produces acid. Acid is necessary for the formation of most ulcers in the oesophagus, stomach, and duodenum, and the reduction of acid with PPIs prevents ulcers and allows any ulcers that exist in the oesophagus, stomach, and duodenum to heal. PPIs are prescribed to treat acid related conditions such as:

 

  • Esophageal duodenal and stomach ulcers
  • NSAID-associated ulcer
  • Ulcers
  • Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
  • Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome – ZES (note this is a syndrome associated with a functioning duodenal or pancreatic NET known as a Gastrinoma)
  • They also are used in combination with antibiotics for eradicating Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium that together with acid causes ulcers of the stomach and duodenum for eradicating H. pylori, a bacterium that together with acid causes ulcers of the stomach and duodenum.

Although this should not be considered a full list applicable to all countries, the drugs tend to be prescribed or purchased under the following names:

  • Aspirin and Omeprazole (Yosprala)
  • Dexlansoprazole (Dexilent, Dexilent Solutab)
  • Esomeprazole (Nexium, Nexium IV, Nexium 24 HR)
  • Esomeprazole magnesium/naproxen (Vimovo)
  • Lansoprazole (Prevacid, Prevacid IV, Prevacid 24-Hour, Zoton FasTab)
  • Omeprazole (Prilosec, Prilosec OTC, Losec, Mepradec)
  • Omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate (Zegerid, Zegerid OTC)
  • Pantoprazole (Protonix, Pantoloc Control)
  • Rabeprazole (Aciphex, Aciphex Sprinkle, Pariet)

PPIs have revolutionized the management of acid-related diseases and there is evidence supporting their superior efficacy and overall safety profile. Unfortunately, it would appear this has possibly led to their overuse and inappropriate use. When used appropriately, the overall benefits significantly outweigh the potential risks in most patients.

One US pharmacist magazine has stated that almost half of all patients taking a PPI do not have a clear indication. It follows that PPIs may not be the appropriate treatment for many people. The American Gastro Journal nicely covers this issue – click here.

What is the connection with NETs?

Millions of people will have been prescribed these drugs for the various reasons listed above and as I said above quoting from a reputable US Pharmacist magazine, perhaps many are not do not have a clear indication. So this issue is much wider than NETs.

Above, you can see a direct link to duodenal/pancreatic NET syndrome – ZES. However, there is also a known link between the use of PPIs and the effect on the Chromogranin A blood test, the most common tumour marker used in the diagnosis and surveillance of many types of NET. Several studies have concluded that PPIs falsely elevate Chromogranin A – read more here.

Any other risks of using PPIs?

There are several well-known risks of using PPIs in the long-term. However, many drugs have side effects, often the risks of not taking a particular drug can be outweighed by taking it. I will not comment further but leave you with some references to read yourself:

1. From the UK National Health Service (NHS). They took a balanced view adding the risk element I described above. Importantly they stated that PPIs are not usually intended to be taken long-term. Read more here. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published the study referred to by the NHS here.

2. The NHS also published an article based on the results of a US study. Again, they indicated the study had similar limitations to the one above. Read more here (links to the study contained within).

3. There are literally dozens of similar articles but most seem to point to these two studies. However, it should also be noted that the US FDA has issued safety warnings about long-term use of PPIs. This is covered in the aforementioned US Pharmacist magazine article here.

Are there alternatives to PPIs?

Firstly, you should NEVER stop taking PPIs without speaking to the doctor who prescribed them.

There’s a class of drugs known as Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists (H2RA) that reduce the amount of acid produced by the cells in the lining of the stomach. They are also commonly called H2 blockers. They include Cimetidine (Tagamet, Tagamet HB), Famotidine (Pepcid, Pepcid AC), Nizatidine (Axid) and Ranitidine (Zantac). Brand names may differ from country to country. From what I read, they are not as powerful as PPIs but for some people they may prove adequate. Read more about H2 blockers here.

So I can just stop taking PPIs and start taking H2 blockers?

NO. As I said above, you should never discontinue a prescription for PPI without talking to your doctor. However …. it’s not common knowledge that suddenly stopping PPIs is not a good idea – you must gradually reduce (i.e. taper off).

Why taper? PPIs block the production of acid in your stomach which can help with the symptoms but that also turns on the release of gastrin. This is not ideal for two reasons according to NOLANETS:

  1. When you try to get off of PPI, the gastrin stimulates acid production and stays elevated, potentially for several months (depending on how long you were on the PPIs). This makes your reflux worse than before and makes getting off of this medication very difficult. Gastrin also stimulates Chromogranin A thus why this can be elevated in patients who have been taking PPIs.
  2. Gastrin also acts like a growth factor and stimulates the growth of ECL cells (enterochromaffin like cells). Clearly this does not happen to everyone on PPIs. However, and as per the NHS advice above, PPIs should not be considered a long-term solution except for conditions for which they are clinically indicated (e.g. Barrett’s oesophagus, Gastrinoma (Zollinger Ellison Syndrome).

What are NET Specialists saying about this?

The best source of information on this seems to be in two main areas:

1. One is NOLANETS (Dr Eugene Woltering et al) who appear to be leading the way on identifying those who may have a clinical indication for use of H2 blockers rather than PPI and this NET Specialist organisation has produced a sheet showing how to taper people off the drug and onto the less risky H2 blockers. Read the NOLANETS “Get off PPIs” Sheet by clicking here. They state that PPI use increases circulating gastrin which in turn increases the amount of acid in the stomach. The increase in gastrin also stimulates the enterochromaffin like cells (ECL) of the stomach to produce Chromogranin A and this explains why it can be elevated in PPI users. The US Pharmacy magazine quoted above, appears to confirm this thinking.

2. The European NET Society (ENETS) discusses the issue in their guidelines but only in relation to Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome (ZES). This is a direct quote from ENETS 2016 Guidance – “The widespread use of PPIs is a major problem for the diagnosis of ZES because these drugs have an extended duration of action (up to one week), they cause hypergastrinemia in 80-100% of all normal subjects, and can confound the diagnosis. Furthermore, if PPIs are abruptly stopped in a true ZES patient, anti-peptic complications can rapidly develop, and therefore some expert groups have recently recommended that the diagnosis of ZES should be established without stopping the PPIs or by attempting to taper the dose. Unfortunately, as suggested in a number of recent papers, in most patients, the diagnosis cannot be easily established without an interruption of the PPIs. Furthermore, a secretin test cannot be used while a patient is taking PPIs because it can result in a false positive test. Other tumour markers such as serum chromogranin A were found to be not reliable for the diagnosis of ZES patients, as up to 30% have normal plasma chromogranin A levels. PPIs also lead to increased chromogranin A levels on their own. It is therefore recommended that if the diagnosis is unclear, the patient should be referred to a centre of excellence and if this is not possible, PPI withdrawal should be cautiously performed (in an asymptomatic patients with no active acid-peptic disease or damage) and with adequate cover by H2 blockers and careful patient monitoring”.

PPIs and PERT

I have anecdotal evidence that people are being prescribed PPIs alongside Pancreatic Enzymes Replacement Therapy (e.g. Creon, Nutrizym etc). While most types of PERT are gastro-resistant, a high acid environment may impair their efficacy. The rationale behind using PPI (or H2 blocker) can decrease the acid level and allow the PERT to work better. Given the research behind this article, I would certainly challenge the use of PPI alongside long-term use of PERT.

Summary

The aim of this article is not to scare anyone, I’ve been careful with the sources, quotes and facts. Like anything in life (including the medical world), there are risks and knowing about them allows us to manage these risks in conjunction with our doctors and healthcare specialists. If you are concerned about anything you find inside this article, I suggest you speak directly to your doctor/specialist for advice.

Personally speaking, I would like to see more from the NET Specialist community on this issue.

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

Please Share this post

Diagnosed with Neuroendocrine Cancer? – 10 questions to ask your doctor (and where to find a NET Specialist)

Find a specialist 10 questions

On the day I was diagnosed, I hadn’t really thought about questions, the only one I actually remember asking was “how long do I have left to live” (I watch too many movies!). On the day of diagnosis and a period beyond, people tend to feel emotions of shock, denial, anger and sadness, before going on to accept their situation. Yes, I ‘googled‘ but not a great deal really – although some things I found did frighten me. I wish I had found this article way back then.

As things progressed in the weeks after ‘D-Day’, I started to work out the sort of things to ask but even then it was limited. I had been referred to an experienced NET team so I felt confident they would do whatever needed doing. In hindsight, I can now think of a quite a few questions I should have asked. That said, I suspect my team probably gave me the answers without having been asked the questions!

My blogging efforts have turned into a ‘Community’ of sorts. Consequently, I’m contacted daily from people finding me on the web. Many of these people are at the pre-diagnosis or initial phase. Many are undiagnosed. Most are looking for information and some sound like they are already at the ‘acceptance stage’; some are frightened about the future, some are angry because they think they are not being told important information and some also feel they have been messed about or ‘fobbed off’ by their doctors. Of course I’m happy to help but only after reminding them that I’m just a wee Scottish guy with the same disease!

I have to say that some people arrive on my site without a diagnosis but often seem to be very well prepared – the power of the internet I suspect. The questions I mostly get involve finding experts and then what questions to ask them.

Finding experts

As an extra bonus to this post, I offer you a starting point for the best places I know for finding NET expertise:

Europe – here at ENETS: European NET Centres of Excellence

UK – here at UKINETS: UK NET Centres

Australia – here: Australian NET Doctors

USA:

Canada:

  • Dr. Simron Singh at Sunnybrook in Toronto
  • Dr. Shereen Ezzat at Princess Margaret in Toronto (PMH)
  • Dr. McEwan, The Cross Clinic, Alberta?
  • Dr Kavan at Montreal Jewish General Hospital (Oncology)
  • Dr Buteau / Beauregard at Quebec Hotel Dieu (Radiation Oncology (PRRT, Ga68)
  • Dr Rivera at Montreal General Hospital (Endocrinology)
  • Dr Metrakos at the Montreal Royal Victoria Hospital (Surgeon) sees a lot of NET patients
  • On the French side Dr Andre Roy at the CHUM in Montreal (surgeon) also sees a lot of NET patients
  • Dr. Jamil Asselah also treats net patients. He is an oncologist….Quebec
  • Michael Sawyer at Cross Clinic in Alberta Edmonton.
  • Drs. Parkins, Card, and Paseka at the Tom Baker CC in Calgary.

Russia – Clinical Oncology Research Institute, N. N. Blokhin RCRC RAMS, Address: 24, Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, 115478, RF. NET specialist Alla Markovich

In my Group – ask other patients: Click here to join.

AskDoctor_0

Neuroendocrine Cancer – 10 questions to ask your specialist

Many people ask me what sort of questions to ask and because NETs is such a diverse bunch of diseases, that leads to me ask them a series of questions to ascertain what they might consider asking. I’m not surprised to find some are unable to answer my questions and so those then become some of their questions to ask!

Also, questions don’t end at the diagnosis phase, they continue and in fact, some of the answers to the questions below, may bring up new questions in your mind. Some of these questions can be asked time and time again in the event of issues downstream.

If you’re currently confused about the essential facts of your condition, you’re not alone. In a recent study, almost half of cancer patients did not know basic stuff such as grade and stage of cancer, and after their initial treatment, whether they were free of disease or in remission.

Pre-question Check

For those entering or are recently just beyond the diagnostic phase, you may find certain questions cannot yet be answered without further test results etc. However, if the answer is not yet known for whatever reason, at least you have it on your list for follow up appointments. Consequently, I’ve constructed this list of questions that should function as a generic set. There may also be ‘specific to country’ questions such as insurance cover in addition to this suggested list. Of course, some of you may not want the answer to so certain questions. That’s perfectly understandable, so don’t ask!

1. Where is my primary tumour and what type of NET is it?

This is a fundamental question and it’s likely many will already have some inkling about location and perhaps a type. The difference between NETs and other types of cancer is the primary can be found wherever there are Neuroendocrine cells rather than a specific part of the anatomy in terms of naming the type of cancer, i.e. a NET of the pancreas is not Pancreatic Cancer.

The type of NET is key as it will drive a lot of other stuff including treatment. Location and type of NET are not always aligned, for example, you may have a NET in your Pancreas but there are several types of Pancreatic NET (or pNET) and these may depend on identification of a particular hormone (see syndrome below). Many NETs are non-functional (there is no oversecreting hormone).

For some the primary will not yet be found (i.e. cancer of unknown primary or CUP). There may also be multiple primaries.

2. What is the grade and differentiation of my tumour(s)?

Another fundamental question as this defines the aggressiveness of the disease and is absolutely key in determining overall treatment plans. Treatment plans for poorly differentiated can be very different from well differentiated. Read more here – Grading and here – Benign or Malignant

3. What is the stage of my disease?

Fundamental to understanding the nature of your disease. Stage confirms the extent of your disease, i.e. how far has it spread. Again this will drive treatment plans and long-term outlooks. Scans are really important in determining the Stage of your cancer – check out my scans post here. Read more here on Staging

4. Do I have a NET Syndrome?

Many NET patients will have been experiencing symptoms prior to diagnosis, perhaps for some time. It’s possible these symptoms form part of what is known as a ‘Syndrome’ and there are several associated with NETs. Syndromes are mostly caused by the effects of over-secretion of hormones from the tumours, a hallmark of Neuroendocrine disease. Carcinoid Syndrome is the most common but there are many more depending on the primary location. Read more here – NET Syndromes.

5. What is my treatment plan, and what are the factors that will influence my eventual treatment? When will I start treatment

This is a very complex area and will depend on many factors. Thus why your specialist may not have the answers to hand. Decisions on treatment are normally made by some form of Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT).  Many people diagnosed with cancer expect to be whisked away to an operating theatre or chemotherapy treatment. However, for many this is not what actually happens. Depending on what testing has been done up to the actual diagnosis, it’s possible that even more testing needs to be done. Additionally, for those with an accompanying syndrome, this will most likely need to be brought until control before certain treatments can be administered; and even then, there may be checks to make sure the treatment will be suitable. Sometimes it’s a case of ‘Hurry up and wait’. My first treatment was 6 weeks after diagnosis and that was designed to control my syndrome ready for surgery which was undertaken 14 weeks after diagnosis. It’s also possible you will be placed on a ‘watch and wait’ regime, at least to begin with.

6. Can you comment on the potential for my type of NET to be related to any familial or genetic aspects of cancer?

A small percentage of NETs are hereditary/genetic in nature.  This is mostly associated with those who have Multiple Endocrine Neoplasms (MEN) syndromes  and a few other less common types of NET including Pheochomocytoma / Paraganglioma(Pheo/Para) and Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) (the familial version of MTC is often referred to as FMTC). However, please note this does not mean that all those diagnosed with pancreatic, parathyroid, pituitary, Pheo/Para and MTC tumours, will have any hereditary or genetic conditions, many will simply be sporadic tumors.

7. Will you be able to get rid of all my disease?

This is a really difficult question for any specialist, even a Neuroendocrine expert. All published articles on NETs will say they are a heterogeneous collection of diseases (i.e. consisting of dissimilar entities) which makes this question (and others) difficult. I have read articles written by the world’s foremost NET experts and they all have the word ‘curative’ mentioned in various places. So I guess in particular scenarios with certain NETs, and if the disease is caught early enough, that possibility exists. However, for many, the disease could be incurable, particularly where there is distant metastasis. But, the disease has many treatment options for most types and for many it is possible to live as if it were a chronic condition. I call it ‘incurable but treatable’. Read more here – Incurable vs Terminal

8. What Surveillance will I be placed under?

Again, this is very individual in NETs and is mainly dependent on type of NET, grade and stage and how the patients reacts to treatment. This may not be known until you have undergone your initial treatment. For example, surveillance scans can be any period from 3 months to 3 years depending on tumour type(location) and stage/grade. Marker testing tends to average around 6 monthly but could be more or less frequently depending on what’s going on. Read more here – click here

9. Will I receive support and specialist advice after my treatment?

Let’s not be afraid of the word ‘Palliative’, it does not always mean ‘end of life’ care. Another example is nutrition. Many people with NETs, the condition in combination with the side effects of treatment may necessitate an alteration of diet and this is a very individual area. I would also emphasise that dietitians not well versed in NETs might not offer the optimum advice. Read more – My Nutrition Series.

10. How will treatment affect my daily life?

This is a question that many people miss but it’s becoming more important as we all live longer with cancer Again, this may not be possible to answer immediately but perhaps this question could be reserved once you know which treatment(s) you will be receiving. All treatment comes with side effects and can last for some time or even present with late effects after some years. The ‘consequences’ of cancer treatment need to be factored in earlier so that the necessary knowledge and support can be put in place. See also Unmet Needs for NET Patients

I suspect others will have suggestions for this list so feel free to submit these to me. I quite often refresh my posts over time.

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

NETwork with Ronny © – Newsletter March 2017

 

Hi NETworkers!

Welcome to my fifth ‘community’ newsletter, the monthly summary of NET news, views and ICYMI (in case you missed it!).

The highlight of the month was my attendance at the first ever Joint Patient-Physician symposium at ENETS Barcelona.  I remain thankful to INCA for the honour of attending and for the experience that came with it. It was also great to finally meet other NET advocates face to face for the first time.  Some of them have been great supporters since the inception of my blog and community.

with Grace Goldstein from Carcinoid Cancer Foundation

March was a slower month in blogging terms due to a number of external projects and a continuing flow of private messages. I don’t have an issue with private contact but please note my disclaimer. My winter cold extended into March including during the ENETS/INCA symposium and although I had no voice, I still managed a question to the panel.

Despite a low number of blogs, I still managed to accumulate the second biggest monthly blog views ever. Thank you all so much 

New Blogs Published

Due to the vagaries of Facebook inner workings, some of these may not have even shown on your Facebook timeline.  So, ICYMI …….here’s a summary with links:

Other News in Mar 2017

New Audiences for NET Cancer.  From Day 1, I said it was my aim to find new audiences for NETS rather than just share stuff within our own community.

  • I’m ‘extremely’ active on twitter and I find a lot of my research stuff there. I also use it to support other conditions and it’s mostly returned (i.e. others help with NET awareness). There is so much on twitter that I could swamp the community Facebook site so I started a twitter newsletter via an app called Nuzzel which seeks out stuff I normally like. Click this link and sign up if you think this is something you’d be interested in receiving.  I almost doubled the amount of subscribers in March! Currently 168.
  • I’m making new friends in the interventional radiologist community and am waiting on a video featuring a NET Patient (will bring you details in due course) and I’m learning more about these technologies from reading their tweets – I had no idea how many different jobs these guys do! I’m also seeing an increase from the Pathology community.
  • I’m proud to have been asked to become a ‘Community Champion’ on the Macmillan Cancer Support Forum helping outliers from the NET community there. I’ll be reporting more on this in the coming weeks.

Patients Included.  A new campaign for 2017. I was excited to have been invited to the first ever joint Patient-Physician symposium at the annual ENETS conference in Barcelona 8 – 11 March. I have really good information which will feed into my blogs, either as updates or new blogs. This new blog is a result of attending this symposium but it’s from an existing campaign run along the ‘Consequences’ campaign run by Macmillan Cancer Support for all cancers. In the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life

the first question to the first ever joint patient-physician symposium. Hardly any voice due to a winter cold

Blog Milestone.  In March, I tipped over the quarter of a million views! Thank you all so much Keep sharing!

Facebook Milestone.  I’m aiming for 5000 by year-end and this is on track. The Facebook page is now my biggest outlet for awareness and education so please please please recommend this page to anyone you think would be interested.  The picture of the invite button shown here is an example from a windows computer, it may differ on other platforms.

capture-invite-friends

Instagram

I’m expanding into Instagram to see how that goes. I’ve amassed over 200 followers to date. Initially, I’ll just be posting pictures of things that inspire me, mostly scenic photos of places I’ve been or want to go!  You can follow me here:  Click here to go to my Instagram page

Figures

Where did March Blog views come from? – Top 11 countries:  Denmark is a new entry.

 

 

For interest. the 10 Ten Facebook followers by Country – Spain overtakes France 🙂

Thanks for your great support in March.

Ronny

Hey Guys, I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

community_titled_transparent_2013-10-22

In the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life


Adding life to years is as important as

OPINION.  In the last 24 months, there seems to have been announcement after announcement of new and/or upgraded/enhanced diagnostics and treatment types for Neuroendocrine Cancer.  Increased availability of radionuclide scans, increased availability of radionuclide therapies, combination therapies, increased availability of somatostatin analogues, biological therapies, enhanced surgical and minimally invasive techniques, new oral drugs for carcinoid syndrome, more trials including  immunotherapy. Admittedly, some of the announcements are just expansions of existing therapies having been approved in new 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, regardless of where they live, need access to the best diagnostics and treatments for them; and at the requisite time. This alone is one very big unmet need in a whole range of countries still lacking.

The ‘War on Cancer’ forgot about Neuroendocrine

The ‘war on cancer’ has been around for the last 50 years, it’s still being waged.  There are now more ‘fronts’ and it’s taking longer than thought to find the ‘cure’. The recently announced Cancer Moonshot initiative is a timely ‘reinforcement’.  Despite this 50 year war, it seems like there’s only been a war on Neuroendocrine Cancer for the last 10 of those years. I guess they were focussed on the big cancers and/or the seemingly impossible ‘universal cure’.  Prior to that, for NETs, there is only evidence of some skirmishes, more like guerrilla warfare. Now we have a developed nuclear capability!  I believe the turning point was the SEER database work carried out by Dr James Yao in 2004 who confirmed the incidence had grown by 400% in 3 decades, i.e. confirming it was no longer rare. The rise of both incidence and prevalence was then amplified in the follow on 2012 study (Desari et al).  To be rare is to ignored, so I don’t understand the motives of those who ignore the indisputable mathematical facts available.

Let’s not forget about the consequences of cancer

It is true that half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive for at least ten years. Many live for years with cancer, on ‘watch and wait’ or going through various treatments and tests; their future remaining uncertain.  For this group, and even for those whose treatment has successfully removed or shrunk their tumour, the struggle with the consequences and late effects of cancer and its treatment can last for years.  Many Neuroendocrine Cancer patients fit into this category.

This is why I was very pleased to hear about the new International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance (INCA) campaign to not only address the ‘unmet’ needs of NET patients but to undertake to do it alongside NET specialists representing regional groupings.  I was also extremely happy to have been invited as a guest of INCA to attend the first ever joint patient-physician seminar hosted by ENETS followed by the annual INCA summit where doctors were also invited to form a panel for the first session. It’s worth remembering that I’m not part of the INCA alliance, nor do I represent any national organisation on this blog.  I’m simply RonnyAllan.NET  I was pleased to have asked the very first question about this particular unmet need, emphasising we need more support for those living with Neuroendocrine Cancer, including research into their common issues.

FB_IMG_1489175031510
The first question to the first ever joint patient-physician symposium

Unmet Needs for NETs

So, there’s a lot of treatments for many types of Neuroendocrine Cancer out there, just not everyone has access to them – therefore an unmet need at the international level.  Others are earlier diagnosis, access to multi-disciplinary teams (MDT), ability to access quality information at diagnosis and beyond including clinical trials, funding, accurate national registries to improve statistics and more treatments fot some of the less common types. One area where I feel there is a huge unmet need is in the area of patient support following diagnosis.  Although some countries are more advanced than others in this area, even in the so-called advanced countries, there are huge gaps in provision of long-term support for those living with Neuroendocrine Cancer. For example, physicians need to focus more on:

Late diagnosis. People will be dealing from the effects of late diagnosis which has resulted in metastatic disease – and some people will have been fighting misdiagnosed illnesses for years.  That takes its toll.

Consequences of Surgery. People will have had surgery which in many cases is life changing – various bits of the gut (gastrointestinal tract) are now missing, lungs are now missing – many other locations will have been excised or partly excised.  These bits of our anatomy were there for a purpose and QoL takes a hit when they are chopped out.

Inoperable Tumours and Syndromes. People will be dealing with remnant and/or inoperable tumours which may or may not be producing an associated NET syndrome (some of the symptoms can be rather debilitating in the worst cases)

Consequences of Non-surgical Treatment.  Additionally, people will be dealing with the side effects of multi-modal non surgical treatments, such as somatostatin analogue hormone therapy (Octreotide/Lanreotide), chemotherapy, biological therapy (mTOR inhibitors) (i.e. Everolimus (Afinitor)), biological therapy (protein kinase inhibitors (i.e. Sunitinib (Sutent)), radionuclide therapy (i.e. PRRT).  Whilst it’s great there are a wide range of therapies, they all come with side effects.

Secondary Illnesses and Comorbidities. Some people will have gained secondary illnesses in part due to the original cancer or treatment – e.g. somatostatin analogue hormone therapy can have a side effect of increasing blood sugar to diabetic levels.  There are many other examples.

Finances. NET Cancer can be an expensive cancer to treat and this is exacerbated by the length of time the treatment lasts. A highly prevalent cancer, treatment is for life.  It follows that NET Cancer is an ‘expensive’ cancer to have.  Whilst most people have access to free public services or private insurance, many people will still end up out-of-pocket due to their cancer.

Emotional Aspects. Many NET patients are kept under surveillance for the remainder of their lives.  With that comes the constant worry that the cancer progresses, tumours get bigger, new tumours show up, treatments are denied (i.e. PRRT in the UK).  It’s no surprise that anxiety and depression can affect many patients in these situations. To some extent, there can be a knock-on effect to close family members and carers where applicable.

As I said within my question to the INCA panel, even if you found a cure for NETs tomorrow, it will not replace the bits of my GI tract excised as part of my treatment.  For many people, even ‘beating’ cancer might not feel much like a ‘win’.  It’s a two-way street though – we need to work with our doctors, trying to change lifestyles to cope better with some of these issues.  This is why it’s really important to complete patient surveys. However, my point is this: more research into some of these issues (e.g. nutrition, optimum drug dosage, secondary effects) and earlier patient support to help understand and act on these issues, would be good starters.

“Adding life to years is as important as adding years to life”

Thanks for reading

Please Share this post

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

 

https://www.facebook.com/NETCancerBlog/

patients included

NETwork with Ronny © – Newsletter February 2017

network-with-ronny

Hi NETworkers!

Welcome to my fourth ‘community’ newsletter, the monthly summary of NET news, views and ICYMI (in case you missed it!).

February was a slower month in blogging terms due to a major increase in contact from people privately asking for advice and others asking me to support external projects. I don’t have an issue with private contact but please note my disclaimer. I also had a winter cold for a few days, so I relaxed a bit. Only a short month but I managed to accumulate the second biggest monthly blog views ever (January 2017 will be difficult to beat).  Thank you all so much 

January’s success also led to increased Facebook followers and I broke through the 4000 milestone with a plan to reach 5000 by the end of the year or before.  If I grew at January’s rate, it could easily be 6000 but that’s probably wishful thinking!

The month ended with a bang!  The long-awaited FDA approval of ‘XERMELO’ (Telotristat Ethyl) was announced yesterday. Check out my blog which has all the links you need in one area.  Click here to read

New Blogs Published

Due to the vagaries of Facebook inner workings, some of these may not have even shown on your Facebook timeline.  So, ICYMI …….here’s a summary with links:

Other News in Feb 2017

New Audiences for NET Cancer.  From Day 1, I said it was my aim to find new audiences for NETS rather than just share stuff within our own community.

  • I’m ‘extremely’ active on twitter and I find a lot of my research stuff there.  I also use it to support other conditions and it’s mostly returned (i.e. others help with NET awareness).   There is so much on twitter that I could swamp the community Facebook site so I started a twitter newsletter via an app called Nuzzel which seeks out stuff I normally like.  Click this link and sign up if you think this is something you’d be interested in receiving.  I reached 100 email subscribers today!
  • I’m making new friends in the interventional radiologist community having been invited to join their twitter chat.  That turned out to be profitable as I won $40 of Starbucks e-gifts for being a quick tweeter!  I now have some new friends who are producing a video featuring a NET Patient (will bring you details in due course) and I’m learning more about these technologies from reading their tweets – I had no idea how many different jobs these guys do!
  • I’m proud to have been asked to become a ‘Community Champion’ on the Macmillan Cancer Support Forum.  I’ll be reporting more on this in the coming weeks.

Patients Included.  A new campaign for 2017.  I’m very excited to have been invited to the first ever joint Patient-Physician symposium at the annual ENETS conference in Barcelona 8 – 11 March.  I’m being sponsored by the International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance (INCA). I’ll be tweeting and posting stuff live from the conference, look out for this.

Blog Milestone.  Accelerated viewing figures should put me into a quarter of a million blog views by the end of this month! Thank you all so much Keep sharing!

Facebook Milestone.  My Facebook page is now my biggest outlet for awareness and education so please please please recommend this page to anyone you think would be interested.  The picture of the invite button shown here is an example from a windows computer, it may differ on other platforms.

capture-invite-friends

Instagram

I’m expanding into Instagram to see how that goes.  Initially I’ll just be posting pictures of things that inspire me, mostly scenic photos of places I’ve been or want to go!   You can follow me here:  Click here to go to my Instagram page

Figures

Where did February Blog views come from? – Top 10 countries:

capture-10-ten-country-feb-17

For interest the 10 Ten Facebook followers by Country:

capture

Thanks for your great support in February.

Ronny

Hey Guys, I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

community_titled_transparent_2013-10-22

Neuroendocrine Tumor Drug Clinical Trial – Cabozantinib (includes news on Pheochromoctyoma and Paraganglioma)

What is Cabozantinib?

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.

cabozantinib-picture
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.

Progress report

  1. Poster submission for 2017 Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium
  2. Onc Live output from the 2017 Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium
  3. Output from NANETS 2017
  4. A funded piece of research by the NET Research Foundation – check it out herelooks like they are trying to figure out what patients might benefit from Cabozantinib using biomarker data to predict response.
  5. Dr Jennifer Chan speaking in 2018 about the drug potential.  (Apologies for the use of the out of date term ‘Carcinoid‘).
  6. Phase 3 Clinical Trial Document – click here

————————-

UPDATED 2018 – There’s also another trial looking at unresectable metastatic Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas

A Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Effects of Cabozantinib in Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas 

This part is from an article collaboration between MedPage Today® and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

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

You can see the Pheo/Para clinical trial document by clicking here.

————————————–

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)

Neuroendocrine Cancer: To cut or not to cut?

surgery
OPINION – nothing in here should be taken as advice from the author. 

On paper, surgery remains the only potentially ‘curative‘ option for Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) but there are stage, grade and anatomical constraints to that opinion. Many people get ‘twitchy’ about the ‘C word’ but our most eminent NET specialists use the term frequently including in the major treatment guidelines.

I use the word ‘curative’ with some reservations because for many who are diagnosed at an advanced stage, surgery will not cure but will debulk or cytoreduce as much tumour as possible in order to palliate symptoms and improve quality of life.  This is a big deal because NETs is one of a small number of cancers where debulking surgery can often provide a survival advantage for metastatic cases.  One of the reasons it’s a big deal is because with more aggressive cancers at an advanced stage, surgery just might not be offered. It follows that surgery is most likely adding to the fairly decent NETs survival statistics, including for those with metastatic disease at diagnosis.  More on this below.

That’s a fairly simplistic explanation on behalf of surgery. However, as we all know, nothing in Neuroendocrine Cancer is simple.  There are always a number of factors involved and every decision can in some way be on an individual basis.  There are guidelines for treatment of most types of NETs but ……. they are just that – guidelines.  NET Centres and NET Specialists are encouraged to use these guidelines, for example, a European Centre of Excellence has ENETS Guidelines.  There is a North American equivalent set published by NANETS and NCCN have a decent complementary set.  The UK and Ireland guys (UKINETS) also published a set although many UK centres are ENETS accredited.

Whether to cut or not to cut (or watch and wait then cut if necessary) and the sequencing of treatments is a really difficult issue for NET specialists.  I quite liked watching these two video clips and they cover this issue quite nicely including some interesting abdominal challenges in surgery from known NET Specialists – these short video sessions are highly recommended:

a.  Risk Stratification and Management of NETs – click here

b.  Surgical Considerations for NETs – click here

Surgery can sometimes be a tough call (……to cut or not to cut?)

It is an area where I have some sympathy for physicians and surgeons who sometimes have tough decisions to make. Surgery is risky, particularly where people are presenting in a weak condition, perhaps with very advanced disease, secondary illness and comorbidities.  I also suspect age is a factor (I was surprised to find myself considered ‘young’ at 55).  Physicians and surgeons need to weigh up these risks and the  consequences of the surgery against a ‘watch and wait’ or alternative non-surgical approach.  This would normally be discussed via a ‘Tumor Board’ or Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting. However, and although imaging helps, the situation is not really 100% clear until the surgeon ‘gets inside’.  Remember, all physicians and surgeons are bound by the ‘Hippocratic oath’ of “Do no harm“.  Sometimes with NETs, it’s a tough call not only before they go inside but whilst they’re inside.

Surgery should be a carefully considered treatment (…..think before cutting?)

I read many stories from many different parts of the world and I also hear them from people who contact me privately on a daily basis.  Some of them are perplexed why they are not receiving surgery and some are not entirely happy with the surgery they received. Many are perplexed by different advice from different doctors.  I find it very difficult to respond to many. My most frequent answer is “ask your doctor” but I’m normally pretty helpful with the sorts of questions to ask.

One thing which tends to surprise people is speed – or lack of it!  With lower grade NETs, the extent of the tumour (stage), its metastases, histological grade and secretory profile should be determined as far as possible before planning treatment. I like to remind people that in 2010, it took from 26 July to 9 Nov before my body saw a scalpel. With Grade 1/2 well differentiated NETs, you can often get away with that gap.  Sometimes when you are diagnosed with NET, it’s a case of ‘hurry up and wait’.

Back to the guidelines, of course most people will probably fit reasonably well into the relevant guidelines flow chart.  A very generic example here (not for active use please, your area may have an alternative based on availability of treatments etc):

algorithm-ukinets-page-2-gutjnl-2012-january-61-1-6-f2-large
Very generic treatment algorithm UKINETS – Ramage JK, Ahmed A, Ardill J, et al. Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) Gut 2012;61:6-32.  For example purposes only please.

Timing of Surgery (……to cut now, to cut later?)

Following on from the scenario above, timing of surgery can be another factor in a ‘watch and wait’ situation. I guess this might be something in the back of the minds of more cautious doctors when faced with a rather indolent and very slow growing Neuroendocrine Tumour. For some this can be a sensible thing – ‘kicking butt’ in a surgical context is sometimes the wrong approach. The worry is that if they are not a NET specialist, they may not fully understand the vagaries of neuroendocrine tumor behaviour (i.e. they all have malignant potential – WHO 2010/2017). We’ve all heard the stories of people being told it’s not cancer, right? Please note my article Benign vs Malignant.  However, you may be interested in this post from someone who is one of the most experienced NET surgeons on the planet.  Dr Eric Liu talks quite candidly about the ‘timing’ of surgery suggesting a ‘watch and wait’ approach in certain scenarios.

Of course cutting now might actually be a pre-emptive measure. For example, if physicians can see a growth which is critically placed close to an important structure such as a blood vessel or the bile duct or bowel. Even if the disease cannot be cured, removing the tumour may prevent problems in the future by removing disease from key areas before the vital structure has been damaged or blocked. For example, my surgeon conducted a high risk operation on some desmoplasia (serotonin fibrosis) which had encircled my aorta and cava almost occluding the latter. There’s an excellent surgery pamphlet from NET Patient Foundation and I strongly recommend a read as it’s an experienced surgeon’s approach to surgery with NETs (actually written by my own surgeon Mr Neil Pearce!).  Click here to read it.

One NET centre in USA has published very detailed surgical statistics indicating that surgical cytoreduction in NET patients has low morbidity and mortality rates and results in prolonged survival.  Their conclusion went on to say “We believe that surgical cytoreduction should play a major role in the care of patients with NETs”.  You can read the extract from this document by clicking here.  Authors: Woltering et al.

Was Steve Jobs a smart guy who made a stupid decision when it came to his health? It might seem so, from the broad outlines of what he did in 2003 when a CT scan and other tests found a cancerous tumour in his pancreas. Doctors urged him to have an operation to remove the tumour, but Mr. Jobs put it off and instead tried a vegan diet, juices, herbs, acupuncture and other alternative remedies. Nine months later, the Neuroendocrine Tumour had grown. Only then did he agree to surgery, during which his doctors found the cancer had spread to his liver. The rest is summarised in my article Steve Jobs.

Summary

This is a difficult subject and no one size fits all. Treatment for NETs can be very individual including surgery.  I guess you need to be comfortable with your team. I was lucky, in that I lived close to a NET Centre.  I was referred to their surgical team once my staging and grading were complete and I was stabilised on somatostatin analogues (carcinoid syndrome under control).  I realise it’s difficult for many but I always say to people who make contact, it’s best if you can be seen by a NET centre or an experienced NET specialist – at least be guided by one if not possible or practical.  Personally, I think the surgeon’s experience in dealing with NETs is really important.  But even experienced NET centres/specialists have to make tough calls.

You may benefit from my 10 Questions article which also has links to NET Specialists.

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.  I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

 

Intra-Operative RadioTheraphy (IORT) for Neuroendocrine Cancer – new landmark treatment launch

PLANETS IORT LAUNCH INVITATION May 2016
IORT

New treatments seem to be appearing every month and that is good news for patients.  I have a personal connection to this one though.  In 2014, Chris and I walked along Hadrian’s Wall, a 2,000-year-old World Heritage structure in Northern England.  This was part therapy for me but also part fund-raising to help pay for this new treatment which launches today in Southampton General Hospital (UK) which was recently awarded the coveted title of European NET Centre of Excellence (along with Bournemouth and Portsmouth Hospitals).  It is the first ever deployment of this type of treatment in UK and Chris and I were happy to shred the soles of our feet to support this worthy cause, particularly when the two guys behind the idea were my surgeon (Mr Neil Pearce) and my Interventional Radiologist (Dr Brian Stedman). Both of these brilliant and skilled people ‘worked on me’ for 12 months in 2010/2011 and I live to tell you this tale!  Shortly after my surgery, they decided to set up PLANETS to focus on providing additional support for Neuroendocrine Cancer and other types such as Pancreatic and Liver in which they specialised.

Mr Neil Pearce (L), Ronny Allan (C), DSr Brian Stedman (R)
Mr Neil Pearce (L), Ronny Allan (C), Dr Brian Stedman (R)

Intra-Operative Radiotherapy (IORT) provided by Mobetron is a bit of a game changer for advanced cancers which are hard to treat and remove. This development is said to be at the cutting edge of modern radiation oncology. Despite the heading, this treatment can be used for many cancers including Neuroendocrine, Pancreatic, Colorectal and Bladder.  It is a mobile version and can be moved to different operating theatres.  There are plans to eventually extend the portfolio to include Head and Neck, Oesophageal, Lung, Breast and Cervical cancers.  The technology can also be used on Brain tumours but there are currently no plans to offer this service.

The radiotherapy is applied during surgery which means the treatment can be delivered more directly without causing damage to surrounding tissue and organs.  It’s worth adding at this stage that this type of radiotherapy is not the same as PRRT.  Moreover, it is not designed to replace PRRT which remains an option for patients downstream if they still need it (in addition to other treatments such as Sirtex, liver emobolisatons).  Clearly dosage calculations would be required for cumulative radiation exposure over short timescales.  Worth noting that PRRT currently remains denied to patients in England.

The type of radiotherapy is more similar to conventional external beam systems and the key advantage is that it can be used for areas where tumours have just been removed or part removed or in locations which have a tendency to recur; and for inoperable tumours such as those surrounding vital structures.  Examples include: bulky pancreatic tumours, inoperable mesenteric root lymph node deposits, difficult pelvic tumours, metastases around the bladder, rectum or uterus and ovaries.  It follows that in addition to treating certain tumours earlier than would normally be possible, IORT may preclude the need for further treatment or at least extend the period post surgery where further treatment would be required.

Clearly there is a lot of excitement surrounding this first ever deployment of IORT which has raised the profile of Neuroendocrine Tumours in the UK national press – check out this article in the Daily Mail by clicking here. There is a useful animated video to watch by clicking here.

The official launch happened on Mon 13 Jun 2016 and Chris and I were very proud to attend.

Thanks for reading

Ronny Allan

I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

 

 

 

Telotristat Ethyl (XERMELO®) – an oral treatment for Carcinoid Syndrome Diarrhea not adequately controlled by Somatostatin Analogues

Telotristat Ethyl is an extremely significant introduction to the treatment of Carcinoid Syndrome diarrhea. It’s the first addition to the standard of care in more than 16 years and the first time an oral syndrome treatment has been developed.  The drug was previously known as Telotristat Etiprate but was changed to Ethyl in Oct 2016. ‘Etiprate’ was previously a truncation of ‘ethyl hippurate’.  The brand name is XERMELO® 

UPDATE MARCH 2018 

The March 2018 issue of Clinical Therapeutics provides the first report of the effects of XERMELO on changes in weight in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and carcinoid syndrome that participated in the TELESTAR study. You have to remember that XERMELO is approved for those with carcinoid syndrome diarrhea not adequately controlled by somatostatin analogues (author’s note – i.e not for diarrhea caused by (say) side effects of surgery).

Of the 120 patients with weight data available, up to 32.5% of patients treated with XERMELO experienced significant, dose-dependent weight gain (≥3% from baseline). Only 5.1% of patients on placebo experienced weight gain. Importantly, patients with weight gain experienced improvement in carcinoid syndrome control, as seen in reduction of bowel movement frequency and in parameters of nutritional status associated with positive changes in patient-reported outcomes compared with patients with stable weight or weight loss. Those patients also experienced reduced u5-HIAA levels. Patients with weight gain also experienced fewer serious adverse events than patients with stable weight or weight loss.

(see link below)

Who is the drug for?

The drug may be of benefit to those whose carcinoid syndrome diarrhea is not adequately controlled by somatostatin analogues (Octreotide/Lanreotide). It doesn’t replace somatostatin analogues – it is an additional treatment alongside (although I have heard of patients in the US being subscribed who are not receiving somatostatin analogue treatment)

Where is it currently approved?

The US FDA approved the drug 28 February 2017.

On 19 September 2017,the European Commission approved Xermelo® (telotristat ethyl) for the treatment of carcinoid syndrome diarrhea in patients inadequately controlled by somatostatin analogue therapy after the scientific committee of the EMA (known as Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)) adopted a positive opinion recommending the approval of Xermelo® (telotristat ethyl) 250 mg three times a day for the treatment of carcinoid syndrome diarrhea in combination with somatostatin analogue (SSA) therapy in adults inadequately controlled by SSA therapy. The Ipsen press release is here.  Clearly some action will be required in EC national countries before the drug becomes available through the appropriate healthcare systems.


On 17 Oct 2018, Health Canada announced approval for Canadian NET patients – click here.

For all other countries please note that Ipsen will pursue a worldwide regulatory plan for marketing authorisation submissions in the territories in which it operates. Once approved, Ipsen will be distributing the drug in all countries less USA and Japan where Lexicon retains the rights. Outside USA and Europe will be constrained by national approval timelines.

How does it work?

In the simplest of terms, the drug is an inhibitor of the enzyme tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH).  TPH is the rate-limiting enzyme in serotonin synthesis which converts tryptophan (an essential amino acid which comes from diet) to 5-hydroxytryptophan, which is subsequently converted to serotonin, one of the main causes of carcinoid syndrome effects including carcinoid heart disease.  The trial data indicates that Telotristat ethyl significantly reduced the frequency of bowel movements. Furthermore, it was also associated with “significantly reduced levels of urinary 5-HIAA“, a marker for systemic serotonin levels, which are typically elevated in severe carcinoid syndrome.  Essentially it works by reducing the manufacture of Serotonin so it’s it may not have any effect on diarrhea not caused by syndrome (i.e. post surgery etc).

telotristat-etiprate-clinical-trial-serotonin-as-a-key-driver-of-carcinoid-syndrome

Resources for your perusal:

  • You can read more about the trial data in a summary by Dr Matthew Kulke (Dana Farber) by CLICKING HERE (latest review from 2017 ASCO).
  • There is also an excellent summary in video form by Dr Lowell Anthony (University of Kentucky) by CLICKING HERE. (“any reduction in diarrhea is meaningful“).
  • The detailed output from the trial (results) can be found by CLICKING HERE.
  • Great 2016 article from ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncologists) can be found by CLICKING HERE.
  • FDA Approval.  CLICK HERE
  • Lex Pharma press release on approval.  CLICK HERE
  • EU Approval (Ipsen Press Release).  CLICK HERE
  • The manufacturer Lex Pharma have established a dedicated site – CLICK HERE
  • 2018 revised clinical data – CLICK HERE

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.  I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

wego-blog-2018-winner

 

 

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms – Grade and Stage (incorporating WHO 2017 changes)

Grades of Neuroendocrine Tumour WHO 2017 15 Dec 2017

One of the most discussed and sometimes confusing subjects on forums is the staging and grading of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (NENs). Mixing them up is a common error and so it’s important to understand the difference despite the apparent complexity. If I was to make a list of questions for my specialist/Oncologist at diagnosis, it would include “What is the stage, grade and differentiation of my cancer”.  To enable me to synchronise with the documented guidance, I’m going to use the following WHO 2017 approved terms in this post:

  • Neuroendocrine Neoplasm (NEN) – all types of Neuroendocrine tumour of whatever grade (please note Neoplasm is another word for tumour)
  • Neuroendocrine Tumour (NET) – all well-differentiated tumours (an explanation of differentiation will be provided below)
  • Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (NEC) – all poorly differentiated tumours

NEN Breakdown

Stage vs Grade

In the most basic of terms, stage is the spread or extent of cancer and grade is the aggressiveness of cancer. They are totally different things and an understanding of both is important as they are critical to predict outcome (to a certain extent) and guide therapy. There is no correlation between the two, you can have the lowest grade with the highest stage (actually very common with NETs).

As patients, we deal with many medical specialists during diagnosis and subsequent treatment.  However, we rarely meet the pathologist who plays a critical role in the outcome. Precise diagnosis is what drives patient decisions and treatment. If the pathology is wrong, everything that follows could be incorrect as well.  It’s a very important area.

Why is differentiation important?

To fully understand grading, you also need to understand the concept of ‘differentiation’.  In the most basic of terms, ‘differentiation’ refers to the extent to which the cancerous cells resemble their non-cancerous counterparts.  This is an important point for NETs because many low-grade tumour cells can look very similar to normal cells. The differentiation of a NET has an impact on both prognostics and treatment regimes.

NENs fall into one of three grades based on their differentiation and their proliferative rate. The proliferative rate is measured mainly using two methods known as Miotic Count and Ki-67 index, the latter seems to be more frequently used (but see below for Lung NETs). The Ki-67 index can usually be determined, even in cases of small biopsies but Mitotic rate counting requires a moderate amount of tumour tissue (at least 50 HPFs or 10 mm) and may not be feasible for small biopsies.  The Miotic Count method may be preferred or used in addition to Ki-67 for certain Lung NET scenarios as it is said to be more helpful in distinguishing atypical from typical NET (what some might ‘old fashionably’ and incorrectly refer to as Lung Carcinoid tumours), and for small and large cell lung Neuroendocrine Carcinomas (NEC).

Some of you may have heard the term ‘moderately differentiated’ which tended to align with an intermediate grade or Grade 2. However, please note that the term moderately differentiated as a classification was phased out in 2010 by WHO reducing from 3 differentiation levels to 2.  Grade 2 is also defined as well differentiated but based on different proliferative rate (see table). High grade was normally referred to as Neuroendocrine Carcinoma indicating it is a faster growing and more aggressive cancer. However, see below for an important change to high grade classification.

Grading – Key WHO 2017 Changes

WHO Classifications of Cancer are published in something known in medical world as “The Blue Book”.  For NETs, the 2017 version comprises only the “WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs”.  Technically this would preclude the digestive system and lung NETs but I’m told on good authority from world leading pathologists and from listening to lectures at ENETS 2018, that the classification in the leading picture is to be used for all NENs. Worth also noting that the latest ENETS Guidelines are already using the new grading terms.  Many sites remain out of date so be careful where you look.

The 2017 World Health Organisation (WHO) classification sub-divided Grade 3 into two new entities: a well differentiated high-grade NET and a poorly differentiated high-grade NEC.  There may also be a cut-off point in proliferative rate (i.e. Ki-67) between NET and NEC in relation to potential treatment strategies (55% is mentioned for pNETs but I’m currently investigating).

The Grade 1 to 2 Ki-67 cut-off is changed from 2 to < 3 for clarification purposes.  There was some discussion as to whether it should be <5 but this was not accepted.

Well differentiated High Grade NETs are now recognised.  These are known as a NET rather than a NEC.  Both Grade 3 (NET) and Grade 3 (NEC) have the same biopsy marker cut-offs as per the leading slide but it is thought that a threshold reading of 55% could have some influence on the treatment regime. For example, a well differentiated tumour with a Ki67 of less than 55% might benefit from the same treatment given to Grade 1 or 2 patients, whereas a well differentiated tumour with a Ki67 of less than 55% might benefit from the same treatment given to poorly differentiated NEC. I suspect this is like many things in NENs, very individual, relies on many factors, so your specialist will drive this accordingly.  You may see these 2 grades listed as Grade 3a for NET and Grade 3b for NEC.

Previously, Pheochromocytoma did not have an official grading regime, i.e. they were just benign or malignant.  Now they are using the same grading system as above.  I’m assuming this is the same for Paraganglioma and I will confirm in due course.  This is an excellent change and a continuation from the WHO 2010 classification where there was great emphasis away from a benign/malignant classification to formal grade levels on the basis that all NETs have malignant potential.

It also introduced a change to the naming of mixed cell tumours from Mixed AdenoNeuroendocrine Carcinoma (MANEC) to Mixed Neuroendocrine Non-Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (MiNEN).  A full explanation of this MiNEN will follow but I would suggest the use of the term ‘Neoplasm’ has been chosen rather than ‘Carcinoma’ is because these neoplasms can be well or poorly differentiated.

It’s not possible at this time to acquire copies of the official output but I will keep this blog live.

The source material for the 2017 version of this article.

From leading Pathologist Dr Anthony Gill  – Remember this is based on Endocrine Organs only but it will eventually apply to all.   I am awaiting access to free documentation to update this article further – only ones I can currently find are not free!

Misc Grading Issues

The proliferative rate can be diverse in NENs, so sampling issues can limit the accuracy of grading. More substantial samples of tumour are therefore preferable for grading thus why the Ki-67 index is preferred for biopsies where large amounts of tissue may not be available. The distinction of low-grade from intermediate grade can be challenging when using small samples. A couple of interesting observations about NET grading which I spotted during my research and ‘forum watching’.  You can have multiple primary tumours and these might have different Ki-67 scores.  Additionally, on larger tumours, Ki-67 scores can be different on different parts of the tumour.  And something I know from my own experience, secondary tumours can have different Ki-67 scores than primary – even a different grade.  In my own case, my liver secondary tumours were graded higher than my primary which according to my surgeon is in keeping with a clone of the disease having become more aggressive over time.  Royal Free Hospital NET Centre indicates a person’s grade should be taken from the highest biopsy grade taken. This is a fairly complex area but a recent study published by the US National Institute of Health and many anecdotal comments made by NET specialists indicates that is a fairly common scenario.

Staging (spread)

Staging is the extent or spread of disease.  Most types of cancer have 4 stages, numbered from 1 to 4 indicating a rising spread as the number is bigger. Often doctors write the stage down in Roman numerals, perhaps this is to stop any confusion between standard numbers used for Grades? So you may see stages written as I, II, III and IV.  In addition to this standard method, there is also an agreed model known as TNM (Primary Tumour, Regional Node, Distant Metastasis) which is essentially a more detailed staging definition when combined with the Stage 1-4 model.  Please note with TNM models, there could be different stage descriptions depending on the location of the primary tumour and similarly different TNM models for different tumour locations.

WHO 2017 changes

WHO 2017 has recommended enhancements to the TNM system mainly the use of additional suffixes indicating the extent of lymph node involvement. Details to follow when I can free access.

The following example shows the stage descriptions for a NET of the small intestine (the others are similar but worded accordingly for that part of the anatomy):

Stage I tumour is less than 1 cm in size and has not spread to the lymph nodes or other parts of the body.

Stage II tumour is greater than 1 cm in size and has started to spread beyond the original location, but has not spread to the lymph nodes or other parts of the body.

Stage III is any size tumour that has spread to nearby areas of the body and also to at least one lymph node.

Stage IV is any size tumour that has spread to one or more lymph nodes and has also spread to other, more distant areas of the body (such as the liver).

It’s also worth pointing out that Stage IV does not necessarily mean a cancer is more dangerous than other cancers of lesser stages.  This is an important point for NETs where Stage 4 can be matched up with a low-grade tumour i.e. Stage 4 for lower grade NETs is very often not the ‘red flag’ it is for other more aggressive cancers.  For example, doctors may surgically remove a Stage IV NET, while surgery might not help a patient with a cancer of a higher grade at such a late stage.

Notes:

  • Sometimes doctors use the letters to further divide the number categories – for example, stage 2A or stage 3B.  This is normally to clarify or provide more detail of the primary tumour size/invasion in conjunction with the TNM model.
  • You may also see something called Stage 0 which is for ‘Carcinoma in situ’. It means that there is a group of abnormal cells in an area of the body. However, the number of abnormal cells is too small to form a tumour and may, therefore, be currently classed as benign.  The World Health Organisation (WHO) system does not appear to recognise Stage 0 for NETs.

The most generic model for TNM staging is below but please note this could be adjusted for particular types of NET.

Primary Tumor (T)
TX: Primary tumor cannot be evaluated
T0: No evidence of primary tumour
Tis: in situ (abnormal cells are present but have not spread to neighbouring tissue; although not cancer, in situ may become cancer and is sometimes called preinvasive cancer)

T1, T2, T3 and T4 is a measure of the size of, and/or invasion/penetration by, the primary tumour and the wording varies between different NET sites. e.g. for a small intestinal NET:

T1 tumour invades mucosa or submucosa and size <=1 cm

T2 tumour invades muscularis propria or size >1 cm

T3 tumour invades subserosa

T4 tumour invades the visceral peritoneum (serosa)/other organs

For any T add (m) for multiple tumours

Regional Lymph Nodes (N)
NX: Regional lymph nodes cannot be evaluated
N0: No regional lymph node involvement
N1: regional lymph node metastasis

Distant Metastasis (M)
MX: Distant metastasis cannot be evaluated
M0: No distant metastasis
M1: Distant metastasis is present

You may occasionally see TNM staging be prefixed by lower case letters.  The most commonly used prefix is ‘p’ simply meaning the grading has been confirmed by pathology.  e.g. pT4 N1 M1

Specialists can combine the Stage to create a TNM – for example:

This slide will be updated when I get access to WHO 2017 or updated AJCC pubication.

Summary

A complex area and I hope I have condensed it sufficiently for you to understand enough for your purposes.  Despite looking very scientific, it is not an exact science. There are many variables as there always are with Neuroendocrine disease.  NENs can be very challenging for a pathologist even an experienced one who may not have encountered NENs before.  However, it is an extremely important part of initial diagnosis and also when needed during surveillance.  It is a vital tool used by Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT) in treatment plans and for prognostic purposes.  If you need to learn further, I recommend this document:

If you are interested in this subject and have one hour to spare, there is a great video here from LACNETS worth watching.

Finally – always make sure you get your pathology results at diagnosis and following any subsequent sampling.

You may benefit from reading these associated posts:

Benign vs Malignant

Incurable vs Terminal

Carcinoid vs Neuroendocrine

10 Questions for your doctor

Looking for a needle in a haystack

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. Help me build up my new site here – click here and ‘Like’

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Check out my Podcast Interview (click and press play)

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!


wego-blog-2018-winner


patients included

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST

Carcinoid vs Neuroendocrine

OPINION

CARCINOID misnomer etc

There’s a constant debate regarding the validity of the term ‘Carcinoid‘.  I’ve posted about this a few times and as far as I know, the debate has been raging for some years.

You may have noticed that ‘Carcinoid’ is often used as a standalone word and tends not to be suffixed with the word ‘Cancer’ or ‘Tumour’ – unlike Bowel Cancer, Breast Cancer, Prostrate Cancer, Lung Cancer, Brain Tumour, etc.  Nobody goes around saying “Breast” or “Bowel” do they?  But they happily say “Carcinoid”.  Unfortunately, the term ‘Carcinoid’ has become entrenched in both pathology and clinical literature over the past 100 years. The main problem with the word Carcinoid is that it means different things to different people. Some use the term almost exclusively to designate serotonin-producing tumours that arise from the enterochromaffin cells that can result in carcinoid syndrome i.e. most commonly in the appendix, small intestine, stomach, lung, rectum and uncommonly in other places. Some use it to (incorrectly) refer to all Neuroendocrine Tumours. The most worrying connotation of the use of the word ‘Carcinoid’ is the belief that they all have benign clinical and biological behaviour.  That is dangerous thinking and has the potential to kill people.  Fortunately, NET specialists are starting to move away from using the word – check out the quote below:
carcinoid falling out of favor

Siegfried Oberndorfer
Siegfried Oberndorfer

The Origins

The following history of ‘Carcinoid’ is well documented: Siegfried Oberndorfer (1876-1944) became the first to adequately characterise the nature of Carcinoid tumours and refer to them as “benign carcinomas.” During his tenure at the Pathological Institute of the University of Munich, Oberndorfer noted in 1907 that the lesions were distinct clinical entities and named them “karzinoide” (“carcinoma-like“), emphasizing in particular their benign features. However, In 1929 he amended his classification to include the possibility that these small tumours could be malignant and also metastasise. (Author’s note – a name change would have been handy at this point).

100 years later

NANETS, UKINETS and ENETS seem to defer to the WHO classification nomenclature and it is here another term is introduced – Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (NENs).  NANETs state that “all of the entities under discussion are neoplastic, and neoplasm is therefore a more accurate term than tumor, which means only a mass“.  These organisations tend to use the term Neoplasm as a catch-all for all Neuroendocrine disease and then the term ‘tumor’ and ‘carcinoma’ applies to well and poorly differentiated respectively.  It’s worth noting that since 2010, the WHO classification 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. Neuroendocrine Carcinoma is malignant by defintion. All of this has been reinforced in the 2017 publication. The term ‘Carcinoid’ is conspicuously missing from these texts.

To put it simply – the term ‘carcinoid’ is no longer credible

Due to its historical meaning, Carcinoid does not adequately convey the potential for malignant behaviour that accompanies many of these neoplasms as described above.  The term Carcinoid decodes to ‘Carcinoma like’.  Contextually “Carcinoid Cancer” decodes to “carcinoma like cancer” which is, of course, totally misleading and its use simply perpetuates the claim by some that it is ‘not a proper cancer’.  If we only needed one reason to ditch the word ‘Carcinoid’, this would be it.

carcinoid is inadequate oberg quote 2016

I mentioned confusion above and this has led to a hybrid effect of naming the condition.  For example, there is a tendency by some (including medical establishments and patient organisations) to use the term ‘Carcinoid’ and ‘Neuroendocrine Tumors’ interchangeably which is patently incorrect. Neither is it helpful that many patients and organisations continue to refer to this disease as “Carcinoid Neuroendocrine Tumor”, “Neuroendocrine Carcinoid Tumor”, “Neuroendocrine Carcinoid Cancer”, “Carcinoid/Neuroendocrine”, “CNET”; and many other variations along these lines. Many seemingly credible organisations will say “Carcinoid and Neuroendocrine Tumors” not realising it’s a contradiction in terms. Continued use of the term in any phrase or standalone context is not doing our case for recognition any good – it’s bad enough that some seem to cling to outdated and invalid diagnostic clichés and icons from the 1980s.  All of it needs to go.

carcinoid npf quote

I know I’m not alone in this thinking given the decrease of its use in the NET world, including NET Specialists (see lead graphic) and NET Specialist organisations (some have changed their names).  There’s an interesting article written by a NET specialist where the term ‘carcinoid’ is described as “unfortunate”, “misleading”, “outmoded”, “archaic”, “confusing” and “misnomer”. Exactly!  In the recent SEER NET study, a NET specialist reaffirmed this thinking by stating that “the belief these tumors did not metastasize, did not reach any great size, and appeared harmless, has since been proven false”.  Continued use of the term ‘Carcinoid’ has the potential to regress this thinking.  We must not let this happen.

referring to carcinoid

So what terms should we be using?

People and organisations will be out of date with modern Neuroendocrine Neoplasms nomenclature and some will still want to continue with their own nomenclature (….. and because of the confusion, some will fall into both categories not realising they’re out of date).  Here’s a classic example of the problem we face – the American Cancer Society(ACS) does not even list Neuroendocrine Tumor as a cancer type.  Instead you can find “Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors” and “Lung Carcinoid Tumor”. You’ll find Pancreatic NETs inside Pancreatic Cancer.  Americans should harangue the ACS to get this right. I could go on with many similar observations on seemingly respectable sites. I intentionally used a US example as this country appears to be way behind in the changes to NET nomenclature, pretty surprising as they tend to be at the forefront of many other aspects in the world of NETs.

Personally, I think the acceptance of a common worldwide nomenclature should come from the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification for Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.  They are divided into a number of chapters including ‘Endocrine Organs’, Digestive System, Lung Tumours….. and no doubt some others.  Frustrating, but medical people tend to look at things in anatomical terms. Nonetheless, the agreed classification nomenclature for the whole group of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms can be found with some research and access to clinical publications.  The correct nomenclature should then be flowed down in regional groupings, e.g. ENETS representing Europe, NANETS representing North America, etc.  As I understand it, ENETS and UKINETS are already essentially aligned with WHO and NANETS appears to be. From these organisations, the use of the correct terminology should then rub off on patients, patient advocate organisations and general cancer sites.  However, the biggest challenge will be with hospitals/medical centres, cancer registries and insurance companies whose medical record processing is run using reference data (think drop down selections and database structures).  Easier said than done but ‘change’ always has to start somewhere.  Technically it has started (albeit late) as the big NET medical organisations are already starting to reduce the use of outmoded words such as ‘carcinoid’.

I once argued that the term ‘carcinoid’ needed to be retained as it represented a histopathological grouping of a particular type of NET comprising mostly appendiceal, stomach (gastric), rectal, small intestine and lung NETs.  However, reading through the ENETS 2016 guidance in conjunction with the most up to date WHO classification publications, I’ve changed my mind after noticing they no longer use the word ‘Carcinoid’ in relation to a tumor type.  Rather, they use the latest WHO terms above and then use the anatomy to distinguish the different types of NET (like we already do for Pancreatic NET or pNET).

Perhaps patients can lead the way here ………

Rather than say:

‘Carcinoid’ or ‘Carcinoid Tumor’….. why not say Neuroendocrine Tumor or NET (adding your primary location if required – see below);

‘Carcinoid Cancer; ….. why not say Neuroendocrine Cancer;

‘Lung Carcinoid’ ….. why not say Lung NET (adding typical or atypical if required);

‘Small intestine Carcinoid’, why not say Small Intestine NET (or ‘SiNET which is becoming popular); p.s. I’m not a fan of ‘small bowel’ due to the potential for confusion with the widely used term ‘bowel cancer’);

‘Gastric Carcinoid’, why not say Gastric NET (adding your type if required);

‘Rectal Carcinoid’, why not say Rectal NET;

‘Appendiceal Carcinoid’, why not say Appendiceal NET;

…. and so on.  And you can add your stage and grade/differentiation for a richer picture.

You can listen to a very well known NET Specialist say something similar in this video here.

Worth noting that even ENETS and NANETS cannot agree on tumor type terminology – the latter uses Small Bowel NETs (SBNETs) whereas ENETS uses Small Intestine NENs (SiNENs). I did say it’s easier said than done.

As I said above, the term ‘Carcinoid’ has become entrenched in both pathology and clinical literature over the past 100 years so it will still appear in many texts and need to be searchable online to support medical and advocacy business.  However, these are technical issues and I don’t therefore believe people need to use the terms to make them searchable online.  I tag all my posts with ‘Carcinoid’ even if I don’t mention the word in my text.  I have started only using the term for context when it is required and am currently reviewing all of my posts to ensure that is still the case.

Hang on…what about Carcinoid Syndrome

When someone wants to know which syndrome you have, you can’t just state (say) “small intestine syndrome” or “midgut syndrome”.  ‘NET Syndrome’ doesn’t work either as there are several NET syndromes.  This has led to the situation where people try to drop the word ‘carcinoid’ and just say “the syndrome” which is even more confusing! I accept this one is a difficult challenge but I don’t believe it’s insurmountable, just needs some willpower and agreement.

What about Carcinoid Heart Disease

Personally I don’t see why this cannot be renamed to ‘Neuroendocrine Heart Disease’ or its technical name – ‘Hedinger syndrome’.

What about Carcinoid Crisis

World renowned NET specialists already make statements that these issues can apply to all types of NET; and it’s well-known that a similar crisis situation already applies to other types e.g. Pheochromocytomas.  I cannot see why something along the lines of ‘Neuroendocrine Crisis’ or ‘NET Crisis’ would not be acceptable.

Summary

We as patients are unlikely to be able to force changes on the medical and insurance communities but we can be a ‘force for change’ by setting the example of using a correct and more apt terminology to describe our disease.

 

Thanks for listening

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news. Please also support my other site – click here and ‘Like’

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Check out my Podcast (click and press play)

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

patients included

wego blog 2018 winner