Clinical Trial: Intra-arterial Lu177 (PRRT) for Neuroendocrine Cancer liver metastases (LUTIA)


PRRT INTRA ARTERIAL

 

The treatment of liver metastasis is a common approach following a metastatic diagnosis or discovery of liver metastasis downstream via re-staging. In addition to surgery, there are several liver directed therapies available via embolization techniques. This comes in several flavours:

1. Bland liver embolization – a minimally invasive technique which simply blocks the blood supply to the liver tumours in an attempt to reduce or kill those tumours. Sometimes called Hepatic Arterial Embolization or HAE.

2. Chemotherapy liver embolization – as above but adds in some cytotoxic chemo to the mix. Sometimes called Trans Arterial Chemo Embolization or TACE.

3. Radioembolization is a minimally invasive procedure that combines embolization and radiation therapy to treat liver cancer. Tiny glass or resin beads filled with the radioactive isotope yttrium Y-90 are placed inside the blood vessels that feed a tumour. Often known as Sirtex or SIR-Spheres.

Of course systemic treatment is body-wide and so includes the liver as a target. Systemic treatment includes (but is not limited to) Lu177 (PRRT), Chemotherapy, Targeted Therapies such as Everolimus (Afinitor) and Sunitinib (Sutent). Also included are somatostatin analogues such as Lanreotide and Octreotide.

Sometimes systemic treatment is not fully effective on all metastases and although PRRT response rates are good, often patients still live with the burden of remnant liver tumours once therapy is finished.

Doctors in the Netherlands are looking at a trial using Lu177 (PRRT) as a liver directed therapy. The trial is based at 3 sites in the Netherlands and is titled: Intra-arterial Lutetium-177-dotatate for Treatment of Patients With Neuro-endocrine Tumor Liver Metastases (LUTIA). You can read more about the trial by clicking here.

I will keep this article open for any updates.

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!

patients included

Please Share this post

Neuroendocrine Cancer: Ga68 PET Scan – a game changer?

When I was offered my very first Ga68 PET/CT at a 6 monthly surveillance meeting in May 2018, I was both excited and apprehensive. Let me explain below why I had a mix of emotions.

I was diagnosed in 2010 with metastatic NETs clearly showing on CT scan, the staging was confirmed via an Octreotide Scan which in addition pointed out two further deposits above the diaphragm (one of which has since been dealt with). In addition to routine surveillance via CT scan, I had two further Octreotide Scans in 2011 and 2013 following 3 surgeries, these confirmed the surveillance CT findings of remnant disease. The third scan in 2013 highlighted an additional lesion in my thyroid (still under a watch and wait regime, biopsy inconclusive but read on….).

To date, my 6 monthly CT scans seem to have been adequate surveillance cover and all my tumour and hormone markers remain normal. I’m reasonably fit and well for a 62-year-old.

Then I ventured into the unknown

this is not actually my scan!

I wrote a comprehensive post about the Ga68 PET entitled “…. Into the unknown” – so named because that is how I felt at the time. It’s well-known that the Ga68 is a far superior nuclear scan to the elderly Octreotide type, showing much greater detail with the advantage of providing better predictions of PRRT success if required downstream. It has been a game changer for many and if you look below and inside my article, you will see statistics indicating just how it can ‘change the game’ in somatostatin receptor positive Neuroendocrine Cancer diagnostics and treatment.

The excitement of the Ga68 PET

I was going to get the latest ‘tech’ and thought it could be useful confirmation of what I already knew. I also felt lucky to get one, they are limited in UK and there has to be a clinical need to get access. I was excited because it might just rubber stamp the stability I’ve enjoyed for the past 5 or so years since my last surgery in 2012.

The apprehension of the Ga68 PET

I also felt apprehensive because of the ‘unknown’ factor with cancer, i.e. what is there lurking in my body that no-one knows about, and which might never harm me but this scan will light it up demanding attention. I was also apprehensive in case this more detailed scan found something potentially dangerous. As we know, NETs are mostly slow-growing but always sneaky. Of course, any new tumours found may not actually be new, they were just not seen until the Ga68 PET was able to uncover them.  How annoying!

Is the Ga68 PET Scan a game changer?

To confirm the advantages of SSTR PET over Octreotide scans, a study comprising 1,561 patients reported a change in tumour management occurred in over a third of patients after SSTR PET/CT even when performed after an Octreotide scan.

  • Overall, change in management occurred in 44% (range, 16%-71%) of NET patients after SSTR PET/CT.
  • In 4 of 14 studies, SSTR PET/CT was performed after an 111In-Octreotide scan. In this subgroup, additional information by SSTR PET/CT led to a change in management in 39% (range, 16%-71%) of patients.
  • Seven of 14 studies differentiated between inter- and intramodality changes, with most changes being intermodality (77%; intramodality, 23%). (note: intermodality means changes within the same treatment, intramodality means change to another treatment).

In an older study, this slide from a NET Research Foundation conference shows some more interesting statistics:

wp-image-991783422jpg
This slide from a recent NET Research Foundation conference confirms the power of more detailed scanning

Was Ga68 PET a game changer for me?

Yes, I believe so.  I’m now in the ‘bone met club’ and although that single metastasis has probably been there for some time, it’s not a ‘label‘ I was keen to add to my portfolio. If I was to be 100% honest, I’m not totally convinced it’s a metastasis. The scan has brought more light onto my thyroid issue.  In fact it indicate even more potential issues above the diaphragm including what looks like a new sighting around my left pectoral.  The can also lghts up a known issue in the left clavicle lymph nodes, first pointed out via Octreotide scan in 2010 and biopsy negative.

In addition to a nuclear scan update (routine surveillance), it also formed part of an investigation into progression of my retroperitoneal fibrosis (initially diagnosed 2010 but potential growth spotted on recent surveillance CT).  The Ga68 PET doesn’t make fibrosis light up (it’s not cancerous) but there are some hotspots in the area of the aorta close to the fibrosis.   Surgery is on hold for now as my kidney function is fine following a renal MAG3 scan which reported no blockages. 

It would appear I’m no longer a boring stable patient

The Ga68 PET Scan confirmed:

Bone Metastases. Report indicates “intense focal uptake“. It always amazes me that people can be thankful for having an extra tumour.  I’m thankful I only have a single bone metastasis (right rib number 11). I had read so many stories of those who got their first Ga68 PET and came back with multiple bone metastases. I’ll accept one and add to my NET CV. I have no symptoms of this bone metastasis and it will now be monitored going forward. I’m annoyed that I don’t know how long it’s been there though!

Confirmation and better understanding of the following:

  1. Thyroid lesion There is some uptake showing. A 2014 Biopsy of this lesion was inconclusive and actual 2018 Ga68 PET report infers physiological uptake. I’m already diagnosed hypothyroidism, possibly connected.  (Edit – on ultrasound in Jan 2019, looks slightly smaller than previous check).
  2. Left Supraclavicular Fossa (SCF) Nodes lighting up “intense uptake“.  I’ve had an exploratory biopsy of the SCF nodes, 5 nodes removed negative. Nothing is ‘pathologically enlarged’ in this area. Monitored every 6 months on CT, annually on ultrasound.  I had 9 nodes removed from the left axillary in 2012, 5 tested positive for NETs and this area did not light up. This whole area on the left above the diaphragm continues to be controversial. My surgeon once said I had an unusual disposition of tumours.  (Edit: Nothing sinister or worryingly enlarged showing on Jan 2019 ultrasound – measuring 6mm).
  3. Report also highlights left subpectoral lymph nodes which is new.  The subpectoral area is very interesting as from my quick research, they are closer to the left axillary (armpit) nodes than they are to the SCF nodesI’m hoping to get an ultrasound of these in January at my annual thyroid clinic (Edit: nothing sinister showing on ultrasound in Jan 2019).
  4. My known liver metastases lit up (remnant from liver surgery 2011) – not marked as intense though. The figure of 3 seems to figure highly throughout my surveillance scans although the PET report said “multiple” and predominately right-sided which fits.
  5. Retroperitoneal area. This has been a problem area for me since diagnosis and some lymph nodes are identified (intense word not used). This area has been highlighted on my 3 octreotide scans to date and was first highlighted in my diagnosis trigger scan due to fibrosis (desmoplasia) which was surrounding the aorta and inferior venous cava, some pretty important blood vessels. I wrote an article on the issue very recently – you can read by clicking here. So this scan confirms there are potentially active lymph nodes in this area, perhaps contributing to further growth of the fibrosis threatening important vessels – read below.

Retroperitoneal Fibrosis (Desmoplasia)

I have learned so much about desmoplasia since this issue arose that I now fully understand why I had to have radical surgery back in 2010 to try to remove as much of the fibrosis as possible from the aortic area. You can read more about this in my article.  Desmoplasia via fibrosis is still very much of an unknown and mystery condition in NETs.

I now know that my fibrosis is classed as clinically significant and according to the Uppsala study of over 800 patients inside my article, I’m in 5% of those affected in this way (2% if you calculate it using just the retroperitoneal area).

It appears this problem has come back with new fibrosis or growth of existing fibrosis threatening to impinge on blood vessels related to the kidneys and also my ureters (kidney to bladder urine flow). The Ga68 PET doesn’t make fibrosis light up (it’s not cancerous) but there are some hotspots in the area of the aorta close to the fibrosis.

I didn’t expect this particular problem to return – it was a bit of a shock. My hormone markers have been normal for 8 years and this just emphasises the importance of scans in surveillance. 

Conventional Imaging is still important though

There’s still quite a lot of hype surrounding the Ga68 PET scan and I get this.  However, it does not replace conventional imaging (CI) such as CT and MRI scans which still have their place in routine surveillance and also in diagnostics where they are normally at least the trigger for ‘something is wrong’. For the vast majority, a CT/MRI scan will find tumours and be able to measure reductions and progress in regular surveillance regimes. There are actually recommended usages for the Ga68 PET scan here.  For example, it is not recommended for routine surveillance in place of CI.

In fact, the retroperitoneal fibrosis has appeared on every CT scan since diagnosis but the changes were highlighted on my most recent standalone CT and it triggered the Ga68 PET (although my new Oncologist did say I was due a revised nuclear scan).  It’s not a ‘functional’ issue (although it is caused by functional tumours). In fact the fibrosis is not mentioned on the Ga68 PET because it is not lighting up – but the lymph nodes surrounding it are mentioned and they are under suspicious as being active.

Read a summary of all conventional scans and nuclear scans by clicking here.

Next Steps

I’ve since has meetings with my Oncologist and Surgeon and a treatment plan is underway. My surgeon explained it all in his wonderfully articulate and brilliant surgical mind. Fortunately it’s not really urgent but pre-emptive treatment may be required at some point as the consequences of kidney/bladder function are quite severe. Following some further checks, the anticipated surgery is on hold for now as my kidney function is fine following a renal MAG3 scan which reported no blockages.  I continue to have monthly renal blood tests and it was hinted another renal MAG3 could be done at the end of the year.

Summary

My game has changed, that’s for sure. I’m now entering a new phase and I’m waiting on details of my revised surveillance regime. However, at least my medical team and I now know what WE are dealing with and the risks vs benefits are currently being assessed. I’m heavily involved in that.

If you can see it, you can detect it. If you can detect it, you can monitor or treat it.

ASCO 2017 – Let’s talk about NETs #ASCO17

ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) is one of the biggest cancer conferences in the world normally bringing together more than 30,000 oncology professionals from around the world to discuss state-of-the-art treatment modalities, new therapies, and ongoing controversies in the field.  As Neuroendorine Tumors is on a roll in terms of new treatments and continued research, we appear to be well represented with over 20 ‘extracts’ submitted for review and display.  This is fairly complex stuff but much of it will be familiar to many.  I’ve filtered and extracted all the Neuroendocrine stuff into one list providing you with an easy to peruse table of contents, complete with relevant linkages if you need to read more.  For many the extract title and conclusion will be sufficiently educational or at least prompt you to click the link to investigate further.  Remember, these are extracts so do not contain all the details of the research or study. However, some are linked to bigger trials and linkages are shown where relevant.  I’ve also linked to some of my blog posts to add context and detail.

I’m hoping to capture any presentations or other output from the meeting which appears to be relevant and this will follow after the meeting.  I will also be actively tweeting any output from the live event (for many cancers, not just NETs).

There’s something for everyone here – I hope it’s useful.

68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT to predict response to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs).  

Conclusions: Objective response to PRRT defines a subset of patients with markedly improved PFS. SUVave 21.6 defines a threshold below which patients have a poor response to PRRT. This threshold should be taken forward into prospective study.

Check out my recent blog discussing ‘Theranostic pairing” – click here

Rohini Sharma 4093
A multicohort phase II study of durvalumab plus tremelimumab for the treatment of patients (PTS) with advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) or lung origin (the DUNE trial-GETNE1601-).

News of a trial – no conclusion included.  However, see trial data NCT03095274

Ignacio Matos Garcia TPS4146
Association between duration of somatostatin analogs (SSAs) use and quality of life in patients with carcinoid syndrome in the United States based on the FACT-G instrument.

Conclusions: The duration of SSA use was positively associated with QoL benefit among CS patients. This may be explained by long-term effectiveness of SSAs or selection bias favoring patients with more indolent disease. Future studies will be needed to distinguish between these possibilities.

Daniel M. Halperin e15693
Association of weight change with telotristat ethyl in the treatment of carcinoid syndrome.

Conclusions: The incidence of weight gain was dose-related on TE and was greater than that on pbo. It was possibly related to a reduction in diarrhea severity, and it may be a relevant aspect of TE efficacy among patients with functioning metastatic NETs. Clinical trial information: NCT01677910

See my blog post Telotristat Ethyl

Martin O Weickert e15692
Blood measurements of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) transcripts and gene cluster analysis to predict efficacy of peptide radioreceptor therapy.

Conclusions: A pre-PRRT analysis of circulating NET genes, the predictive quotient index comprising “omic” analysis and grading, is validated to predict the efficacy of PRRT therapy in GEP and lung NETs.

Lisa Bodei 4091
Capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) in neuroendocrine tumor of unknown primary.

Conclusions: CAPTEM shows activity in neuroendocrine tumor of unknown primary. Currently FDA approved treatment options for grade I and grade II GI NETs includes somatostatin analogs and everolimus. Both of which are cytostatic and of limited use in case of visceral crisis or bulky disease where disease shrinkage is required. CAPTEM should be considered for grade II NETS of unknown primary.

Aman Chauhan e15691
Clinical and epidemiological features in 495 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine patients in Mexico.

Conclusions: This is the first multi-center study in Mexico. Which reflects the clinical characteristics of the NET_GET. The results differ in their epidemiology from that reported in other countries. However, the clinical and therapeutic results are very similar.

Rafael Medrano Guzman e15687
Effect of lanreotide depot (LAN) on 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIAA) and chromogranin A (CgA) in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (GEP NET) tumors: Correlation with tumor response and progression-free survival (PFS) from the phase III CLARINET study.

Conclusions: These data suggest that serotonin is secreted by nonfunctioning tumors, but does not reach the threshold required for clinical carcinoid symptoms. Monitoring 5HIAA and CgA may be useful during LAN treatment of nonfunctional GEP NETs. Clinical trial information: NCT00353496

Alexandria T. Phan 4095
Final progression-free survival (PFS) analyses for lanreotide autogel/depot 120 mg in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs): The CLARINET extension study.

Conclusions: CLARINET OLE suggests sustained antitumor effects with LAN 120 mg in enteropancreatic NETs irrespective of tumor origin, and suggests benefits with LAN as early treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT00842348

Edward M. Wolin 4089
Lanreotide depot (LAN) for symptomatic control of carcinoid syndrome (CS) in neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients previously responsive to octreotide (OCT): Subanalysis of patient-reported symptoms from the phase III elect study.

Conclusions: Pts showed improvement in CS symptoms of flushing and diarrhea and reduction in 5HIAA levels with LAN treatment, indicating efficacy of LAN regardless of prior OCT use. Transition from OCT to LAN was well tolerated among prior OCT pts in ELECT. Clinical trial information: NCT00774930

Check out my blog post about Lanreotide and Lanreotide vs Octreotide

George A. Fisher 4088
Molecular classification of neuroendocrine tumors: Clinical experience with the 92-gene assay in >24,000 cases.

Conclusions: These findings highlight the utility of molecular classification to identify distinct NET tumor types/subtypes to improve diagnostic precision and treatment decision-making. In addition, significant differences in the distribution of molecular diagnoses of NET subtype by age and gender were identified.

Andrew Eugene Hendifar e15700
Multi-omic molecular profiling of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Conclusions: In PNETS, multi-omic profiling through the KYT program identified targetable alterations in several key pathways. Outcome data will be explored.

Rishi Patel e15685
Outcomes of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in metastatic grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

Conclusions: In this poor prognosis G3 NET cohort of whom 77% had received prior chemotherapy, a median OS of 18 months from start of PRRT is encouraging and warrants further study. PRRT is a promising treatment option for patients with G3 NET with high somatostatin-receptor expression selected by SSRI.

Mei Sim Lung e15694
Periprocedural management of patients undergoing liver resection or liver-directed therapy for neuroendocrine tumor metastases.

Conclusions: Occurrence of documented carcinoid crisis was low in this high-risk population. However, a significant proportion of patients developed hemodynamic instability, suggesting that carcinoid crisis is a spectrum diagnosis and may be clinically under-recognized. Use of octreotide was not associated with risk of carcinoid crisis or hemodynamic instability; however, this analysis was limited by our modest sample size at a single institution. There remains a need to establish an objective definition of carcinoid crisis and to inform standardization of periprocedural use of octreotide for at-risk patients.

See my blog on “Carcinoid Crisis” 

Daniel Kwon e15689
Predictive factors of carcinoid syndrome among patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI NETs).

Conclusions: By assessing patients with GI NET from two independent US claim databases, this study suggested that patients diagnosed with CS were 2-3 times more likely to be diagnosed with liver disorder, enlargement of lymph nodes, or abdominal mass, than those without CS during the one year prior to CS diagnosis. Future studies using patient medical charts are warranted to validate and interpret the findings. These findings, when validated, may aid physicians to diagnose CS patients earlier.

Beilei Cai e15690
Predictors of outcome in patients treated with peptide radio-labelled receptor target therapy (PRRT).

Conclusions: Radiological progression within 12 months of completion of PRRT is associated with a worse outcome in terms of OS. Patients with greater liver involvement and highest CgA levels are more likely to progress within 12 months of treatment completion. Earlier treatment with PRRT in patients with radiological progression not meeting RECIST criteria may need to be considered. There may be a greater survival benefit if PRRT is given prior to the development of large volume disease.

Dalvinder Mandair 4090
Pre-existing symptoms, resource utilization, and healthcare costs prior to diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors: A SEER-Medicare database study.

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first population-based study to examine potentially relevant pre-existing symptoms, resource utilization and healthcare costs before NET diagnosis. NET patients were more likely to have certain conditions and incurred higher resource utilizations and costs in the year preceding diagnosis of NET.

Chan Shen 4092
Prevalence of co-morbidities in elderly patients with distant stage neuroendocrine tumors.

Conclusions: This population-based study showed that elderly NET pts have significantly different prevalence of co-morbidities compared to non-cancer controls. The impact of these conditions on survival and therapeutic decisions is being evaluated.

A. Dasari e15699
Prognostic factors influencing survival in small bowel neuroendocrine tumors with liver metastasis.

Conclusions: In patients with SBNET with liver metastasis, higher tumor grade and post-operative chemotherapy increased risk of death. However, resection of the primary tumor along with liver metastasis improves the 5-year OS with complete cytoreduction providing the most benefit.

Nicholas Manguso e15688
Role of 92 gene cancer classifier assay in neuroendocrine tumor of unknown primary.

Role of 92 gene cancer classifier assay in neuroendocrine tumor of unknown primary. | 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting Abstracts

Conclusions: Tissue type ID was able to identify a primary site in NETs of unknown primary in majority (94.7%) of cases. The result had direct implication in management of patients with regards to FDA approved treatment options in 13/38 patients (pNETs, merkel cell and pheochromocytoma).

Aman Chauhan e15696
Surgery in combination with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy is effective in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and is definable by blood gene transcript analysis.

Conclusions: Radical loco-regional surgery for primary tumours combined with PRRT provides a novel, highly efficacious approach in metastasised NET. The NETest accurately measures the effectiveness of treatment.

Andreja Frilling e15697
The impact of pathologic differentiation (well/ poorly) and the degree of Ki-67 index in patients with metastatic WHO grade 3 GEP-NECs.

Conclusions: Grade 3 GEP-NECs could be morphologically classified into well and poorly differentiated NETs. Additionally, among grade 3 GEP-NECs, there was a significant difference in ranges of Ki67 index between well and poorly differentiated NECs. Higher levels ( > 60%) of Ki67 index might be a predictive marker for efficacy of EP as a standard regimen in grade 3 GEP-NECs.

Check out my blog post on Grading which has incorporated latest thinking in revised grade 3 classification

Seung Tae Kim e15686
Theranostic trial of well differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) with somatostatin antagonists 68Ga-OPS202 and 177Lu-OPS201.

Conclusions: In this trial of heavily treated NETs, preliminary data are promising for the use of 68Ga-OPS202/177Lu-OPS201 as a theranostic combination for imaging and therapy. Additional studies are planned to determine an optimal therapeutic dose and schedule. Clinical trial information: NCT02609737

Diane Lauren Reidy 4094
Use of antiresorptive therapy (ART) and skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN).

Conclusions: SREs in NEN patients with BM were not uncommon, especially in patients with grade 3 NEN and osteolytic metastases. Application of ART did not significantly alter median OS or TTSRE, no subgroup with a benefit of ART could be identified. The use of ART in NEN should be questioned and evaluated prospectively.

Leonidas Apostolidis 4096
Targeted radiopeptide therapy Re188-P2045 to treat neuroendocrine lung cancer

Conclusions: Rhenium Re 188 P2045, a radiolabeled somatostatin analog, may be used to both identify and treat lung cancer tumors. The ability to image and dose patients with the same targeted molecule enables a personalized medicine approach and this highly targeted patient therapy may significantly improve treatment of tumors that over express somatostatin receptor.

Christopher Peter Adams, Wasif M. Saif e20016

Thanks for reading

Ronny
Hey, I’m also active on Facebook.  Like my page for even more news.
community_titled_transparent_2013-10-22

Steve Jobs – the most famous Neuroendocrine Cancer Ambassador we NEVER had

steve jobs 2010
The last few years have reminded me that life is fragile

Steve Jobs died 5 Oct 2011.  RIP Steve, you certainly made a difference to the world of technology and that is still being felt today.  I have a number of google alerts setup and every day the emails arrive in my inbox. The longest email is always the Steve Jobs one, i.e. Steve Jobs is written about more than Neuroendocrine Cancer and other connected subjects. That’s interesting because Neuroendocrine Cancer is the type Steve had, not Pancreatic as is frequently reported.

There are huge differences between Pancreatic Cancer and Neuroendocrine Cancer with a pancreatic primary – click here to read more. 

pancreatic vs neuroendocrine

I’ve mentioned Steve Jobs a few times previously, mainly in my blog The Human Anatomy of Neuroendocrine Cancer. I wrote that blog when I was frustrated about the constant misreporting of Neuroendocrine Cancer as other types of cancer. Others included Nick Robinson (see blog The Devil is in the Detail) and Wilko Johnson (The Ecstasy of Wilko Johnson).  I’ve also suggested in my blog ‘Every Day is NET Cancer Day’ that we need high-profile patient Ambassadors and despite his death, Steve Jobs would have been quite a catch, had he been willing. Curiously, the same thing is happening with Dag Kittlaus (Siri creator) who was diagnosed with a pNET last year.  To add insult to injury, the 2018 death of Aretha Franklin is gong the same way.

A lot has been written about Steve’s cancer experience and much of it is full of ‘what ifs’. However, I’d like to focus on the facts that are known and we can be almost certain about. That said, the precise detail that we (as NET patients) might want, is probably only to be found in Steve Jobs’s medical documents. Many people say that Steve Jobs had a right to personal privacy and I agree, nothing I put here isn’t already in the public domain.

Diagnosis

How was it found?  In 2003, Steve was having a CT scan to examine his kidneys and ureter, as he had developed recurrent kidney stones beginning in the late 1990s. A suspicious lesion was spotted on his pancreas. To cut a long story short, he eventually had more specialist scans and then a biopsy which diagnosed a type of Neuroendocrine Tumour.  There are many mentions of Insulinoma, a pNET which is reported to have a 10% malignancy rate (ISI Book – Woltering et al). It isn’t clear whether Steve had any presentational symptoms of an Insulinoma at this point (i.e. hypoglycemia).  There is also some chatter online about his tumour being a Glucagonoma (another type of pNET).

Initial Treatment

Steve initially tried alternative medicine before having surgery 9 months after diagnosis. There are reports of his medical team urging surgery earlier and his biographer stated that Steve had later regretted this delay. One of his Doctors is reported to have said “Steve was a very thoughtful person. In deciding whether or not to have major surgery, and when, he spent a few months consulting with a number of physicians and scientists worldwide as well as his team of superb physicians. It was his decision to do this”.  He is reported to have gone on to have a ‘Whipple’ type operation in 2004.  It was only then, that his condition was made public.  During that operation, 3 lesions were reported on his liver.

Ongoing Treatment and Surveillance

Most NET patients enter this phase after their initial treatment, it’s also the period where you learn about the cancer and how best to live with it.  There’s not much written about Jobs’ illness between his surgery and his liver transplant but my research uncovered a useful timeline from Bloomberg and other sources:

June 12, 2005: Jobs talks about his fight with cancer during a commencement speech at Stanford University. He says he was diagnosed about a year earlier and that doctors told him he wouldn’t live longer than six months. The cancer turned out to be a form that was treatable with surgery, “and I’m fine now,” he says. Source Bloomberg.  {Author’s note:  an indication he had been told, or his doctors knew, it was a Neuroendocrine Tumor}

January 24, 2006:  Walt Disney chief executive Bob Iger knew early on that Steve Jobs’s cancer had returned and kept it a secret before it became public knowledge, a new biography of Apple’s late chief executive reveals. The day the deal was officially announced, Mr Iger said he was at Pixar’s headquarters for the ceremony when Jobs asked to go for a private walk. On a secluded part of the Californian campus Jobs put his arm around Mr Iger’s shoulder and revealed his cancer was back. “Frankly, they tell me I’ve got a 50-50 chance of living five years,” the Disney CEO quoted Jobs as saying.

2007:  Not much out there except that he was busy launching what might be regarded as Apple’s most successful and iconic product ever – the iPhone.

June 9, 2008: Jobs, while introducing the iPhone 3G at Apple’s developers’ conference, appears thinner and frail. The company blames a “common bug.”

July 21, 2008: Responding to concerns about Jobs’s appearance, Apple says he has no plans to leave the company and that his health is a private matter. Investors aren’t reassured, and the shares fall 10 percent.

July 23, 2008: The New York Times reports that Jobs has been telling associates and Apple’s board he is cancer-free. Jobs had a surgical procedure earlier in the year to address a problem that contributed to his weight loss, the newspaper reports, citing unnamed people close to the executive. The shares climb 2.6 percent.

July 26, 2008: New York Times columnist Joe Nocera writes that he spoke two days earlier on the phone with Jobs, who said his health problems weren’t life-threatening. Jobs declines to go on the record about the nature of his ailment.

Sept. 9, 2008: Jobs, introducing new iPod media players at an event in San Francisco, still looks thin. “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,” Jobs jokes. Munster says that while the CEO’s appearance is unchanged since June, “Just the fact that Steve Jobs was up there was a positive.”

Oct. 3, 2008: A posting on CNN’s citizen journalist Web site, called iReport.com, says Jobs has been rushed to the hospital after a “major heart attack.” The shares fall 5.4pc. The stock rebounds after Apple says the report is false.

Dec. 16, 2008: Apple says that Jobs won’t be giving his usual speech at the Macworld conference, renewing concerns about his health. Jobs had used the forum to introduce new products for 11 straight years.

Jan. 5, 2009: Jobs says he is suffering from a hormone imbalance, causing him to lose weight. Jobs vows to remain CEO during treatment. “The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward,” Jobs says in an open letter.

Jan. 14, 2009: Jobs gives up day-to-day operations to Cook until June, saying his health problems are more complex than originally thought. Jobs says he will remain involved in major strategic decisions. “I look forward to seeing all of you this summer,” he says in a letter to employees.

By this stage, his cancer is already starting to take its toll on how he looks.

The disease takes its toll over the years

Liver Transplant 2009

It is common knowledge that Jobs had a liver transplant in 2009 in Tennessee (he was on the list in California and Tennessee).  In between his Whipple and then, he appears to have lived (and worked) with his disease and it’s consequences. His issues appear to have been exacerbated by his excessive vegan diet/fads and the effects of the Whipple surgery (many of you will be aware of these effects). For example, he would spend weeks eating the same thing and then suddenly change his mind and stop eating it. He’d also go on fasts. His condition immediately prior to the liver transplant was said to be ‘poor’ and losing more weight (he had been noticeably thinner for some time).

Did Steve Jobs get ‘experimental’ PRRT?

Jobs took a second medical absence for roughly six months in 2009. It wasn’t until June 20th, two months after the fact, that the Wall Street Journal uncovered the fact that Jobs had undergone a secret liver transplant at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. However, during that absence, Fortune reported Jobs also took an unpublicized flight to Switzerland to undergo an ‘unusual radiological treatment’ (PRRT) at the University of Basel for neuroendocrine cancer, according to Jerry York, the Apple director who died in March 2010.

Post-Liver Transplant

In 2010, Jobs started to feel sick again. He would lose his appetite and begin to feel pains throughout his body. His doctors would do tests, detect nothing, and reassure him that he still seemed clear.  In early November 2010, he was in pain, stopped eating and had to be fed intravenously by a nurse who came to his house. The doctors found no sign of more tumours, and they assumed that this was just another of his periodic cycles of fighting infections and digestive maladies.

Heres’ a great bunch of TV interviews (something Jobs didn’t do very often).  “The last few years have reminded me that life is fragile”.  Click here (worth watching the whole 10 minutes). His final TV appearance was in June 2011 to the Cupertino City Council about the acquisition of land for their new campus.  Worth watching some of it: Click here.

The End

In early 2011, doctors detected the recurrence that was causing these symptoms. Ultimately, he developed liver, bone, and other metastases.  He had a further extended leave of absence from his job before stepping down as Apple CEO in Aug,  Steve Jobs eventually died 5 Oct 2011.

steve jobs 2010
The last few years have reminded me that life is fragile

References

Notwithstanding the Pancreatic Cancer vs Neuroendocrine Cancer issue, I carried out my research mainly using two articles of the many you can find out there:

  1.  “And one more thing” about Steve Jobs’ battle with cancer
    This is a long article and totally fascinating.  Some of the evidence is presented using extracts from Walter Isaacson’s book ‘Steve Jobs’
  2. A Tumor Is No Clearer in Hindsight.  This article comes to similar conclusions than the one above but it’s shorter and easier to read. It’s from the New York times and was written after the dust settled on Jobs’ death (i.e. when more facts were available). There is also input to this article from NET specialists Dr Wolin and Dr Libutti.

  3. Apple chief Steve Jobs: Health timeline since 2003.  This article is from a UK National Newspaper (The Telegraph) but via US Business Publication Bloomberg.

Personal Summary

“A tumor is no clearer in hindsight” is a good summary on the basis that I would have liked much more detail!  During my research, I found many mentions of Insulin as stated above but only one or two mentioning Glucagon, a hormone associated with another pNET type – Glucagonoma. However, looking at this tumor type in the ISI Book (Woltering et al) and the Jobs diagnostic and treatment story, I have some doubts whether this was the precise tumor type. I have some other searches in progress hoping to find something concrete.

Thinking Differently There is no doubt that Steve Jobs was an amazing and very interesting character.  You just can’t see Apple being the Apple it is today without his intervention.  He was famous for being ‘unconventional’ and ‘thinking different’ and I get that element of his character.  I just can’t help thinking that perhaps he should have been more ‘conventional’ with this thinking and approach to treating his cancer. However, we just don’t know what advice he was receiving and what advice he accepted or rejected.  As for the ‘Pancreatic Cancer’ thing – I’ve said this before, I believe patients only say or interpret what their doctors say to them in regards cancer type.

“The most famous patient ambassador we never had”.  I don’t mean any disrespect by that, I’m just emphasising that we need so much more awareness of our cancer and a high-profile patient could do so much to help in this area. If he was so inclined, Steve would have been a fantastic advocate for Neuroendocrine Cancer and there’s an area where perhaps thinking different might be the way ahead. However, I have a suspicion that very famous people don’t really want to talk about their illness and Steve Jobs might even perceive that as a weakness.

And one more thing …….  you may also find this article useful.  It’s titled “And one more thing”

 

The 5 E’s (of Carcinoid Syndrome)

Guidance and Risk Management
Guidance and Risk Management

Since my diagnosis, I seem to have been in a perpetual learning phase!  What not to do, what not to eat, what not to read!  However, a couple of years ago, I came across a list of ‘E’ words (5 of them) which is a handy reminder for Carcinoid Syndrome patients, particularly those whose symptoms are not under control. There are many variations of this list but this is my take!  I suspect some of this also applies to other types of NETs and other NET Syndromes.

On analysis of this list, it struck me that I was aware of the issues and their potential effects and I’m certain there is science to substantiate the content. These E’s are apparently the most common ‘triggers’ for Carcinoid Syndrome.  Clearly, they are not going to have the same effect on every patient e.g. I have the occasional drink of ‘Ethanol’ and I always enjoy it, I go for long exhausting walks and I always feel great after.  I had dental treatment without any precautions before I was aware of the risks …….. nothing happened!  Before I was treated, stressful meetings at work would make me flush though!  As for eating – well that’s another couple of blog’s worth!   (see the Diarrhea Jigsaw and Nutrition Blog 4 – Food for Thought)

The 5 Es are, however, very important, as a severe attack of Carcinoid Syndrome symptoms could be debilitating and life-threatening and I’m fairly certain the list was compiled with this in mind.  Some people are more affected by Carcinoid Syndrome and this is not necessarily related to the extent or aggressiveness of their disease.  Some people just react differently.  An extremely severe attack of Carcinoid Syndrome can also be known as a ‘Carcinoid Crisis’ which is very dangerous on the operating table due to the effects of anaesthetics  – thus why many NET Cancer patients may be infused with somatostatin analogues (usually Octreotide) prior to and during surgery or other medical procedures.  There’s a lot of excitement generated around the term ‘Carcinoid Crisis’ but it is generally uncommon.

I’m not saying the 5Es should be ignored but NET Cancer is complex and most things need to be read in the correct context. What works for some may not work for others. There can also be confusion surrounding the source of symptoms, i.e. are they syndrome or something else?  This is why I believe NET Cancer patients need to answer some key questions when considering the risks associated with the 5 E’s:

  • Are you currently syndromic?   If you are, then the 5 ‘E’ list is probably very good advice but interpreting the advice in the correct context remains important.
  • Are your syndrome related biochemistry results normal (e.g. 5HIAA)? Normal readings (in range) tend to mean the syndrome is under control and many people who were diagnosed with a syndrome may actually be non-syndromic following treatment.
  • Have you had treatment or are having treatment likely to produce side effects which might be confused with Carcinoid syndrome? For example, surgery can be the long term cause of diarrhea and other issues. Despite the role of somatostatin analogues, these could also be the root cause of certain reactions.
  • Do you have any other illnesses?  If yes, do these other illnesses produce effects similar to carcinoid syndrome? e.g. asthma, diabetes, rosacea, thyroid disorders, vitamin & mineral deficiencies, malabsorption, gut bacterial imbalance.  Sorting out the symptoms can be a jigsaw with a missing piece sometimes.

The vagaries of this disease will no doubt throw up some exceptions and additions. There will be patients who have no syndrome but have elevated biochemistry and vice versa!  Additionally, there will be patients who have had surgery and/or are being treated with somatostatin analogues but will still be syndromic in varying degrees of severity.

The so-called ‘5 Es’ are as follows:

Epinephrine: This was a new piece of information for me and I only discovered this as a potential problem when I started monitoring some of the USA Facebook forums.  This does not appear to be that well-known in UK. Epinephrine (commonly known as adrenaline) is often used in dentistry mixed with a local anaesthetic. I won’t risk this, so I’ve instructed my Dentist to place a note on my record asking for epinephrine not be used (and clearly I’ll remind them each visit!). According to NET guru Dr Woltering, plain novocaine, carbocaine or plain marcaine are preferred.  You should also check that your anaesthetist for any procedure you may be undergoing is aware of your carcinoid syndrome. However, the danger is not just with dentistry work.  Any anaesthesia is risky.  Check out my post ‘carcinoid crisis’.

For those who have standby ‘Epi Pens’, I did read the following statement on the Carcinoid Cancer Foundation website:  “ …….. one exception is the administration of epinephrine in the case of an allergic anaphylactic reaction (i.e. a bee sting), so it cannot be avoided in this case, just make sure that Octreotide (Sandostatin) is also available“.  This advice is also extremely relevant to Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma patients who may be a high risk of intraoperative hypertensive crisis.

Eating: This is very individual.  Certain foods or large meals can be difficult, particularly if you have had any gastrointestinal surgeries. I keep a personal diary trying to identify things that upset my system. I try to find some balance between what I know is good for me and also what I know I enjoy. For example, I found that very large meals do not agree with my ‘new plumbing’. If I eat a lot of sweets, I’ll also suffer …..so I just eat a little – check out my  blog post Chocolate – The NET Effect.

Personally speaking, I’m fairly certain the vast majority of my issues are related to my treatment (past and present) rather than being provoked by Carcinoid Syndrome, i.e. if I rush to the toilet after a meal, it’s not syndrome, it’s a reaction of my compromised digestive system. So with this in mind, I try to reduce those things but additionally strike a balance between quality of life and excessive and rigid adherence to some of the guidance out there (see below) – as I said above, interpretation and context is important. My compromised system cannot deal with big meals so I ‘graze’ most of the day and then eat a small to medium-sized meal in the evening. I’ve been doing this for 3 years and reduced my visits by 300% without any special or expensive medication.

In my blog Nutrition Blog 4 – Food for Thought, I’ve linked to authoritative sources on potential diet triggers.  I’m not suggesting you cut out all of the foods on these lists (you won’t last long!). Some can indulge in those foods and some cannot. For example, chocolate and caffeine (tea/coffee) are on the lists but I eat/drink those frequently (in moderation) and have no problem. It’s a case of testing things out.  I like to describe my eating as ‘The Risk Management of my Quality of Life’. By the way, no-one is suggesting that a NET patient with carcinoid syndrome (and don’t forget this is only one syndrome of many with NETs) should stop eating foods high in the offending amines or are precursors to serotonin (e.g. tryptophan).  They do not make tumours grow (a myth) but just make sure you adhere to the dietary restrictions for any 5HIAA test.

Emotions:  Stressful situations can cause symptoms to flare up. While it is difficult to avoid all stress (work, home, commuting, etc), it is helpful if you can manage or reduce it. Like eating, this is a very individual area. From personal experience, I know stress can exacerbate carcinoid syndrome. Before I started my treatment, I was regularly flushing in meetings at work (….. think boxing matches!). After my treatment, stress was definitely a factor causing increased bowel motility.  I’ve removed a lot of stress from my life and it helps. You may need to be ruthless in managing this aspect of your illness.

Exercise:  Exercise is extremely important for overall health and well-being and I know quite a lot of NET Cancer patients who exercise regularly without issues. It can, however, trigger carcinoid syndrome if you overdo it – it is, however, like eating, a very individual thing. I take the view that ‘zero’ exercise might potentially be an even higher risk. Even a walk around the garden or gardening is exercise. When I was at work, I would walk to see people rather than phone them. Sometimes I walk to town rather than drive, it all adds up! I have evidence from my own exercising regime proving in my case that exercise can reduce the knock-on effects of some of the other E’s (emotions and eating) and/or the side effects of treatment – check out my blog entitled Exercise is Medicine.  Those who are syndromic and/or have other conditions to manage are probably best to take medical advice on how much exercise they need to do.

Ethanol (alcohol, liquor): Many NET patients have difficulty tolerating wine, beer and spirits (hard liquor). I was never a big drinker so for me it was easy to go almost teetotal. I do have the occasional beer but very infrequently and normally on holiday – I personally don’t get any issues with the odd beer but again this is trial and error.  I really enjoy my beer when I celebrate my Cancerversaries. Also check out my blog Alcohol – the NET Effect

Summary

I’m sure there could be a 5 A’s to 5 Z’s list of things to avoid but as I said above, this needs to be balanced with what the actual risks for you are and if you’re like me, quality of life. If you read most Facebook closed group or forums, you will always find at least one person is affected by something which affects no-one else. Please note this article is just my own appreciation of these issues and I emphasise once again that everyone has different experiences. I do, however, think it’s important to consider any secondary illnesses, effects of surgery and biochemistry results (or indeed a combination of one or more of these factors). Everything in life involves some kind of risk management and if you are totally risk averse, then you are unlikely to have much of a life (or a diet!).

It’s not easy but my daily diary helps me assess trends and work out what things upset me more than others – I can then reduce or eliminate. You need to tailor your own advice perhaps with the help of a doctor and/or dietician versed in NET Cancer.  I also have some related posts on the subject of vitamin and mineral deficiencies, malabsorption and probiotics – check them out as the problems associated with these subjects could potentially look like a worsening of carcinoid syndrome and lead to unnecessary worry and unnecessary treatment.

For most, Carcinoid Syndrome can normally be controlled by the use of debulking surgery and/or somatostatin analogues (Octreotide/Lanreotide).  However, there is a new drug called ‘Teloristat Ethyl’ (XERMELO) which looks like it may provide supplementary treatment for patients whose carcinoid syndrome diarrhea is not adequately controlled by somatostatin analogues. It’s an expensive drug and comes with side effects so you need to be sure it’s your syndrome causing the problem before you commit to a prescription.

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!

 

Neuroendocrine Cancer – my liver metastasis surgery


flc9jdhxzzs4z2m.jpg

From day 1 of my diagnosis, I knew my liver was going to need some attention but I had always known that total removal of all tumours would not be possible. This critical organ did in fact produce the biopsy confirming Neuroendocrine Cancer. The early scans indicated multiple liver lesions and an Octreotide scan reported several quite avid isotope activity.

However, as you can see from my clinical history, they first stabilised my syndrome via daily Octreotide so my tumours were subdued ready for major surgery ’round 1′ which took place Nov 2010 – I wrote about this as Part 1 and Part 2 stories.  As we are talking about my liver, it’s worth noting that a bland Liver Embolization was carried out prior to ’round 1′ as there was an option to look at the liver whilst I was ‘open’.  However, after 9 hours sorting out my other areas, there was insufficient time.

My surgeon (Mr Neil Pearce) promised me a hard year so after 4 months ‘rest’, I was brought back in for major liver surgery (round 2) which took place on 12 Apr 2011.  The ‘luck’ word has to be mentioned again because my local NET MDT was led by Mr Pearce who just happened to be one of UK’s top GI surgeons and one of the pioneers of Laparoscopic surgery – that is what I was to receive.  In the end, I had a right hepatectomy and a metastasectomy which was calculated to be approximately 66% of my liver removed. Thank goodness it grows back!

The operation went well lasting 6 hours although it could have been shorter. Mr Pearce unfortunately had to spend a quarter of this time picking through ‘dense right sided abdominal adhesions’ caused by ’round 1′. My liver metastasis was described as significant on inspection and around 90% of the tumours were removed during this procedure leaving around half a dozen sub-centimetre deposits. Interestingly he said my pattern of disease was more conspicious on intra-abdominal ultrasound than it had been on previous scans. You can see from the post picture, the type of instruments used in laparoscopic surgery and the fact that they pump air into the abdomen to give sufficient space to operate.

I recovered quickly after only 5 days in hospital and was back at work in 3 weeks.  My Chromogranin A finally returned to normal readings recognising the reduction in tumour bulk.  My 5HIAA was already back in normal after ’round 1′ and subsequent commencement of Lanreotide.  For those who have not had a liver laparoscopic procedure, the healing time is much quicker and you only have limited scarring.  I had 3 ‘stab wounds’ (that’s my name for the marks!) across the area of my liver and then a 3 inch scar at the base of my abdomen which was used to remove the ‘bits’ of resected liver.

A follow-up chemo-embolization or TACE (Trans Arterial Chemo embolization) was scheduled a few weeks after the liver surgery which was looking to target the remnant liver tumours.  However, this had to be aborted following some routing issues caused by ’round 1′ surgery.

I still have some residual (but stable) disease on my liver but there has been no progression in these 6 years.  It’s no secret that debulking or cyto-reductive surgery can be of benefit even to those with advanced or metastatic well differentiated Neuroendocrine disease.  I remain thankful for the care and attention I received in the months after my diagnosis.

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!

patients included
This is a Patients Included Site

 

Tweeps – have you retweeted this tweet?

 

Ignore this post about Neuroendocrine Cancer


ignore-this-post

When I was diagnosed, I wasn’t feeling ill. In hindsight, I now know some of the signs were there, I just put up with them. Neuroendocrine Cancer had laid a trap for me and I fell right into it. You see, Neuroendocrine Cancer can be very quiet and unobtrusive. It also plays the ‘long game’ and will sometimes take years before it’s finally discovered.  It is very very very sneaky.

Not satisfied with loitering in your small intestine, appendix, lungs, stomach, pancreas and a host of other places, it wants to reach out to your liver, your lymph nodes, your bones, bung you up with fibrosis, and get into your heart where it can cause the most damage. It will also try to get into your head, metaphorically speaking – however, it will also try the physical route.

As it spreads, it can become noisier through growth but also by secreting excess amounts of hormones and other substances. It knows that tumour growth and these excess hormones and substances will mimic routine illnesses such as IBS, diarrhea, stool changes including steatorrhoea, stomach cramps and bloating, asthma, facial flushing, menopause, weight loss, anaemia, fatigue, tachycardia (fast heart beat), pain, and nausea – a real witch’s brew of symptoms. These may manifest themselves as common endocrine conditions e.g. it can mess with your blood sugar and thyroid levels.  These are a few examples, there can be many others – it’s a real witch’s brew of symptoms. Neuroendocrine Cancer thinks this is great because it fools doctors into misdiagnosing you with something else which means it can continue to grow undetected and unfettered, spreading further inside you.

If nothing is done to stop its relentless growth, it will eventually kill.

However, sometimes an inquisitive doctor or nurse upsets its progress by thinking ‘outside the box’. Neuroendocrine Cancer hates when people are aware of its devious nature and hates when people know which tests can be used to find it and which treatments are best to attack it. Inquisitive, proactive and determined patients can also add to this effect and sometimes a bit of luck is involved.

It doesn’t give up easy and tries to work around your treatment. It knows your treatment will come with certain consequences and it will try to exploit this situation by keeping you guessing between cancer activity and these consequences. It really hates observant medical staff and patients, particularly those who understand Neuroendocrine Cancer.

Unfortunately for Neuroendocrine Cancer, there is now more knowledge about its devious activities and the latest statistics indicate it’s starting to be caught earlier. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to become complacent.

Neuroendocrine Cancer hates awareness and it will be extremely happy if you don’t share this post.

Surgery for NETs – Chop Chop

Carcinoid liver tumour debulking
Liver tumour debulking

At the end of 2014, I was feeling pretty good celebrating 4 years since my first ‘big’ surgery in 2010. It prompted me to write an article Surgery – the gift that keeps on giving. In that particlar article, I really just wanted to say I was grateful for the early surgical treatment and as I was just about to spend another Christmas with my family, I was reminiscing what a wonderful gift it was at the time. Other than some detail of the surgery, I didn’t get too technical, I just wanted to generate a thankful and festive mood. However, a recent private message from a subscriber prompted me to study the current benefits of surgery for Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) in more detail just to ensure my understanding was still in line with best practice.

It’s very well known that NETs can present a major challenge to physicians in their recognition and treatment requirements.  For example, NETs can cause various syndromes, not only for requiring treatment for primary and loco-regional tumours to minimise the risk of abdominal complications and future growth; but also for removal of tumour including liver and other metastases to palliate hormonal symptoms. Some tumours can be quite large and require extensive surgery to remove.

I searched reputable websites and European and North American NET treatment guidelines to find that surgical treatment of these tumours still appears to remain an important intervention, not just for curative treatment (where this is possible) but also for symptom palliation and survival. Although more treatment modalities are available than ever before (e.g. radiotherapy including PRRT, liver embolisation, liver ablation, somatostatin analogues and other new drugs, some with chemo combinations), surgery still appears to be the mainstay treatment to be offered when it is appropriate.  For some it isn’t appropriate or will be held in reserve for watch and wait scenarios or as ‘adjuvant’ treatment downstream. On paper, it appears to be the only current option for a curative scenario if the cancer is caught early enough.

I had an amazing surgeon with an impressive CV in Neuroendocrine disease.  He believes in early and aggressive surgery (within normal guidelines) and always in conjunction with other treatment modalities and only when required.  I found a video of one of his lectures which you may find useful.  Another surgeon who talks with knowledge and passion is Dr Pommier and one of his videos can be viewed here. I’m sure there are many others.   They are different characters but they both seem to believe in getting as much tumour out as early as possible and also emphasise that sometimes it can be too risky so the focus moves to other treatment.  Both presentations provide statistical evidence that debulking/cytoreductive surgery can often offer a better outlook even for those with advanced neuroendocrine disease.

I think I have a soft spot for surgeons – they also seem to love their job despite it being particularly ‘gory’.  On the subject of ‘gory’, I recently came across another surgical video which I found totally fascinating.  This one contains amazing footage of real surgery and if you are like me, you will find this very educational. It’s also fairly recent (2014) so perhaps offers more up to date techniques. It’s also a very well structured presentation. Some of you may have seen it before and some of you could even have even been at the presentation! If you don’t have time, skip forward to approximately ’19 minutes’ and watch them take out large and small tumours of the liver using a technique called enucleation!   (Click here to watch).

Hope you enjoyed this session as much as I enjoyed writing it!

Thanks for listening

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!



patients included

Please Share this post

Surgery – the gift that keeps on giving

surgery

As we approach NET Cancer Day, my thoughts return to 9 Nov 2010. I had been diagnosed with metastatic Neuroendocrine Cancer a few months before and told it was incurable. However, with ‘debulking’ surgery, my Oncologist said my prognosis could be significantly improved. I now know from my own research that Neuroendocrine Tumours are one of a small number of cancers for which surgical debulking confers some survival advantage.  Another term used at the time was ‘cytoreductive’ surgery which means ‘to control symptoms and improve survival by removing or destroying disseminated tumour metastases’.  Less neuroendocrine tumours should result in lower secretions of specific hormones which in turn should decrease the effects of Carcinoid Syndrome from which I was suffering at presentation.  I’m still alive and kicking and don’t feel too bad at all!

The 9 hour operation was planned to debulk what was described as “extensive intra-abdominal neuroendocrine disease” and was first of a number of visits to an operating theatre.  The surgeon removed 3 feet of small intestine at the terminal ilium plus a right hemicolectomy, a mesenteric root dissection taking out the nodes on the superior mesenteric artery and a mesenteric vein reconstruction.  With the assistance of a vascular surgeon, my NET surgeon also dissected out a dense fibrotic retro-peritoneal reaction which had encircled my aorta and cava (almost occluding the latter).  This was a risky procedure but 270º clearance was achieved. Although it was known I also had liver metastases and some distant ‘hotspots’, those were to be tackled at a later stage.

I left the hospital some 19 days later and was delicate for some weeks after that.  I don’t recall what the plans were for Christmas Day that year but everything was changed so that it could be hosted at home organised by my ‘right-hand’ woman – Chris.  It was a good plan, as I just wouldn’t have been able to go elsewhere and it was the best gift I could hope for that year. My 3 grandsons  (I have 4 now !) were under strict orders not to jump on me – I had a 12 inch north to south wound still healing! However, I suspect the youngest who was not yet 2 years old at the time, didn’t really understand 🙂  I do have priceless grandchildren!

Not long after the present exchanging and the meal, I was so exhausted that I laid down and fell asleep immediately as a hint that I should be left alone for a bit!   I thoroughly enjoyed the day and it functioned as a medicine along with the many others I was taking at the time. The whole day reminded me that I have a lot to live for, so I’m thankful for the surgery.  

 

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

My treatment is a pain in the butt!

1d723232d70759d9c8fbe23a6f25a811

This header is a bit ‘tongue in cheek’ (….did you see what I did there?)  I’m very happy to have this treatment every 4 weeks – I can think of far worse scenarios.  When I was first diagnosed, the dreaded word ‘Chemo‘ was discussed.  Actually, Chemo isn’t particularly effective in treating Neuroendocrine Cancer, although I’ve heard of cases where it has made a difference.

Today’s letter is ‘L’ and there are a few.

Lanreotide

This is currently my mainstay treatment and I look forward to it once every 4 weeks.  It is injected ‘deep subcutaneous’ in the upper outer quadrant of the buttock.

Prior to my diagnosis, I was a tad squeamish when it came to injections, even the smallest would make me cringe and I couldn’t bear to watch any needle pierce my flesh! Nowadays, as a daily self injector (see earlier blogs), I no longer have a fear of injections. However, the Lanreotide is the biggest injection I’ve ever had.  It’s not so much the length but the bore as the drug has a certain viscosity.  

The main job of the drug is to inhibit the secretion of dangerous levels of specific hormones from the remaining neuroendocrine tumours, wherever they might be, whatever size they are.   For more detail on this see ‘Does my flush beat yours’ published on 6 May 14. 

Is it a pain in the butt?  Not really, you can feel it go in and you can feel the release of the drug but nothing to worry about.

Check out my experiences with Lanreotide here.  Check out the differences between Lanreotide and Octreotide here.

Liver

One of the main sites for secondary tumours in many cancers is the Liver and this is the case with many types of Neuroendocrine Cancer – if the cancer cells pass into the bloodstream, the liver is a likely place for them to settle. Your liver is the hardest working organ in your body—it acts as a filter, picking up and then removing the toxins from your body and keeping your internal organs running smoothly.  If it isn’t working properly, you’re in trouble.   Fortunately, liver surgery is an effectively way to debulk NETs

Lymph Nodes

Everybody has hundreds of small oval bodies that contain lymph.  Lymph nodes act as our first line of defence against infections and cancer.  Unfortunately with cancer, they very often need to be removed to prevent it spreading further.  I have had a few naughty ones removed including a chain of bulky ones from my abdominal mesentery and over a dozen from my left armpit and collar-bone areas.  

 

Thanks for reading

Ronny

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

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!

community_titled_transparent_2013-10-22