Clinical Trial SPARTALIZUMAB – Immunotherapy for Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (PDR001)

THUMBNAIL_CarTcell.jpg

PDR001 (anti-PD-1) is an investigational immunotherapy being developed by Novartis to treat both solid tumors and lymphomas (cancers of the blood).  It is currently being trialled on many cancers including Neuroendocrine.  It’s brand name is SPARTLIZUMAB.

How PDR001 works

PDR001 is a type of immunotherapy, meaning that it acts by activating the body’s own immune system to recognize and fight cancer cells. Normally, an immune system cell called T-cells recognizes and kills infected or abnormal cells, including those that are cancerous. To prevent T-cells from accidentally damaging healthy and essential tissues, however several immune system checkpoints exist to inhibit, or block, them from going about this work. One example is the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway. Healthy cells produce and display a protein called programmed cell death ligand-1 or ligand-2 (PD-L1 or PD-L2) on their surface. These proteins bind to and activate a receptor called PD-1 that is produced by T-cells. When activated, PD-1 sends a message to the T-cells that prevents them from attacking that particular cell. Cancer cells can hijack this system by producing PD-L1 or PD-L2, effectively hiding from T-cells and evade destruction.
PDR001 is an antibody, a protein designed to interact with and block a specific target. It acts by binding to PD-1, blocking it from interacting with both PD-L1 and PD-L2. This binding blocks the PD-1-mediated inactivation of the T-cells, so that they are able to recognize and target cancer cells. This should result in a reduction in tumor growth and size.

PDR001 in clinical trials

PDR001 has been investigated in multiple completed and ongoing clinical trials, both alone and in combination with a wide range of other agents.

Novartis presented results from an ongoing first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT02404441) of PDR001 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in 2016. Preliminary trial results suggested that the drug is well-tolerated and safe, with a similar profile to other anti-PD-1 drugs currently being developed. The trial is still recruiting patients with various types of advanced cancer at 43 sites across North America, Europe, and Asia; more information is available by clicking on its identification number.

Novartis then initiated several dozen other Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials, all registered on clinicaltrials.gov, to continue investigating the safety and anti-tumor activity of PDR001 in a wide range of cancer types, and in combination with other investigational and approved therapies. For example, a Phase 3 trial (NCT02967692) is comparing the safety and efficacy of PDR001 to a placebo, in combination with Tafinlar (dabrafenib) and Mekinist (trametinib), as a treatment for advanced melanoma.

What about Neuroendocrine?

A phase 2, multi-center study assessed the efficacy and safety of PDR001 in patients with non-functional well and poorly-differentiated Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.  According to the clinical trial document, the types of NENs covered are:

  • Well-differentiated Non-functional NET of Thoracic Origin
  • Well-differentiated Non-functional NET of Gastrointestinal Origin
  • Well-differentiated Non-functional NET of Pancreatic Origin
  • Poorly-differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

The clinical trial indicates the trial is active but not recruiting but it would look like they have all the patients needed and are currently analysing the trial data so far awaiting the next phase perhaps.  In fact I have discovered two pieces of evidence from the trial sponsors:

pdr001 results conclusion
Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii467-viii478. 10.1093/annonc/mdy293

In another analysis of the results:  “Patients with well-differentiated advanced NETs were eligible if they had progressed on prior therapy, including everolimus, while the GEP-NEC patients were eligible if they had progressed on one line of chemotherapy. All patients in the trial received spartalizumab via a 30-minute infusion once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the full well-differentiated cohort, there were 7 partial responses (7%), and 55% had stable disease, while 31% had progressive disease. The confirmed objective response rate was 7%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In the GEP-NEC cohort, the objective response rate was 5%, and the disease control rate was 19%.

The thoracic NETs patients fared best with spartalizumab, with limited responses seen in the pancreatic and GI NETs groups; responses seemed to be associated with PD-L1 expression. In the thoracic NETs cohort, two of five PD-L1–positive patients had a partial response. PD-L1 positivity was more common in the GEP-NEC cohort; among 14 PD-L1–positive patients in that group, the partial response rate was 43%.

The most common adverse events regardless of cause included abdominal and back pain, anemia, dyspnea, and hypertension.

Kjell Öberg, MD, PhD, of Uppsala University in Sweden, discussed the study for ESMO. “We have hope,” he said. “We see that maybe there are some tumor types that might respond to immunotherapy.” In general, NETs are considered an “immunological desert.” There is usually very low infiltration of immune cells in these tumors, and there are a low number of genetic mutation events.”

You can also listen to two very well known NET experts (Simron Singh and Jonathan Strosberg) talk about this trial and the drug ……. “the highest response rate was seen in atypical lung neuroendocrine tumors. It was approximately 20%, but in most cases was not durable”.  See the remainder of the discussion by clicking here.

Also watch Dr Lowell Anthony talking about this drug by clicking here.

You can read more about immunotherapy trials for Neuroendocrine Neoplasms by clicking here. This article includes some advice in interpreting the ‘hype’ that can surround immunotherapy which is still a developing approach to treating cancer.

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

Don’t worry, it’s benign!


OPINION

One of the most controversial aspects of Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) is the ‘benign vs malignant’ question. It’s been widely debated and it frequently patrols the various patient forums and other social media platforms. It raises emotions and it triggers many responses ….. at least from those willing to engage in the conversation. At best, this issue can cause confusion, at worst, it might contradict what new patients have been told by their physicians (….or not been told). This post will not cover Neuroendocrine Carcinoma which by definition is malignant.

Any definition of the word ‘tumour’ will confirm it can either be benign or malignant. However, and while I’m sure there are benign NETs, the key statement to explain any slow growing or indolent NET is that they all have malignant potential – thus why surveillance and follow up is really important. This is the key factor in the changes found in the 2010 Digestive System World Health Organisation (WHO) classification system from the previous ‘flaky’ version. This reinforcement of the malignant potential of all NETs was duplicated in the recent 2017 Endocrine System equivalent, which is now proposed as a classification scheme for all NETs (see below).

“Carcinoid”

Of course we are not helped by the continued use of the term Carcinoid which decodes to ‘Cancer Like’ – that is potentially regressing the work of those specialists who are trying to undo the last 100 years of complacency in the medical world (and not really the type of awareness we need). The word is gradually being erased from NET nomenclature and the recent 2018 proposal by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO NET expert consensus panel to ditch it from the remaining versions of out of date WHO classifications (e.g. Pulmonary/Lung, Pituitary, Head & Neck, Genito-urinary, Adrenal and Paraganglia, Skin), is the final nail in the coffin for Carcinoid. RIP Carcinoid. This also supports our awareness issues with the media reporting the wrong cancer types based on anatomy of the primary tumour. Dear Doctors, Patient Advocates and Patients ….. please stop using the word!

I have lost count of the stories from Neuroendocrine Cancer patients who have been told their tumour was benign but then returned with incurable and metastatic cancer sometime downstream. Clearly there are doctors who do not understand NETs and/or are not aware of the changes in WHO classification schemes since 2010. Sure, some will prove to be ‘benign’ in nature and may not cause many issues but any Ki-67 below 3% is a formal grade of Neuroendocrine Neoplasm. I accept that it’s currently difficult to work out which cases will turn more aggressive and when, thus why surveillance and follow up are really important and also why patients should be seeing doctors who understand NETs. Worth also noting that many slow growing and indolent tumors can still often produce troublesome NET syndromes.

I’ve even heard one patient story where it was claimed a doctor called a metastatic NET case benign! Any definition of ‘benign’ on any respectable cancer site, will include the statement that they do not spread to other parts of the body. The NET Patient world is full of slow growing Grade 1 Stage 4 patients – by definition, they’re all malignant.

Read more detail in these articles as these issues are inextricably linked.

‘Benign vs Malignant’.
‘Carcinoid vs Neuroendocrine’
‘The Invisible NET Patient Population’
‘Staging and Grading’

I’m sure there are scenarios in all cancers where tumours can be benign and will never harm the person but if a Doctor says you have a Neuroendocrine Tumour and not to worry because it’s benign, ask questions.  Start with “how do you know it will never turn malignant” and “what will be done going forward to check”. 

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!


Please Share this post for Neuroendocrine Cancer awareness and to help another patient

Sapanisertib – a drug on trial for Neuroendocrine Tumors (NET) with a pancreatic primary


Researchers are testing the drug Sapanisertib to see if it can halt the progression of pancreatic NETs (pNETs) which cannot be surgically removed, have not responded to other treatment, and have spread to other parts of the body.

What is Sapanisertib?

Sapanisertib is one of a group of targeted therapy drugs that interferes with tumor progression by inhibiting an enzyme known as mTOR which a tumor cell needs for growth.  In fact this is the same technique used in Afinitor (Everolimus), already approved for NETs.

It is also being tested in a number of different advanced cancers, including bladder, kidney, breast, liver, and certain types of lung cancers, among others.

The Clinical Trial

The primary goal of the phase II study is to evaluate how well pNET tumors respond to Sapanisertib. To qualify for this trial patients must have advanced pNET that cannot be surgically removed, and which have not responded to previous treatment with similar drugs. All participants will receive Sapanisertib, and will be checked periodically to see if their tumors are responding to the drug.

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided at this link which provides more details about the Sapanisertib pNET trial – click here and check the inclusion and exclusion criteria; and other data.  There are 354 study locations across the USA.

Please also note this drug development was part funded by the NET Research Fundation – read more 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

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!

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

Recent Progress in NET Management – Positive presentation from Jonathan R Strosberg MD

jonathan-strosbergI recently wrote a blog called Neuroendocrine Cancer – Exciting Times Ahead! I wrote that on a day I was feeling particularly positive and at the time, I wanted to share that positivity with you. I genuinely believe there’s a lot of great things happening. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot still to be done, particularly in the area of diagnosis and quality of life after being diagnosed. However, this is a really great message from a well-known NET expert.

In an interview with OncLive, Jonathan R. Strosberg, MD, associate professor at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida, discussed his presentation on NETs at a recent 2016 Symposium, and shed light on the progress that has been made in this treatment landscape.

OncLive: Please highlight some of the main points from your presentation.

Strosberg: The question I was asked to address is whether we’re making progress in the management of NETs, and I think the answer is unequivocally yes. Prior to 2009, there were no positive published phase III trials.

Since then, there have been 8 trials, 7 of which have reached their primary endpoints. So it’s been a decade of significant improvement. And even though none of these studies were powered to look at overall survival as an endpoint, we’re certainly seeing evidence of improvement in outcomes.

OncLive: What are some of the pivotal agents that you feel have impacted the paradigm in the past several years?

Strosberg: The first group is the somatostatin analogs. We use them to control hormonal symptoms like carcinoid syndrome, but with the CLARINET study, we now know that they substantially inhibit tumor growth.

The next significant drug we use in this disease is everolimus (Afinitor), an oral mTOR inhibitor, which is now approved in several indications based on positive phase III studies. The first was in pancreatic NETs and subsequently, based on the RADIANT-4 trial, it was also approved in lung and gastrointestinal NETs. So that was an important advance.

The next important category of treatment is radiolabeled somatostatin analogs, otherwise known as peptide receptor radiotherapy. The one that’s been tested in a phase III trial is lutetium dotatate, also known as Lutathera. It was tested in patients with progressive midgut NETs and showed a very substantial 79% improvement in progression-free survival, and a very strong trend toward improvement in overall survival, which we hope will be confirmed upon final analysis.

OncLive: Are we getting better at diagnosing and managing the treatment of NETs?

Strosberg: Certainly. I think pathologists are better at making the diagnosis of a NET, rather than just calling a cancer pancreatic cancer or colorectal cancer. They’re recognizing the neuroendocrine aspects of the disease, and doing the appropriate immunohistochemical staining.

We also have better diagnostic tools. We used to rely primarily on octreoscan, and in many cases we still do, but there is a new diagnostic scan called Gallium-68 dotatate scan, also known as Netspot, which has substantially improved sensitivity and specificity. It’s not yet widely available, but it is FDA approved and hopefully will enable better diagnosis as well as staging in the coming years.

And, with the increase in number of phase III studies, we’re developing evidence-based guidelines, which will hopefully lead to more standardization, although knowing how to sequence these new drugs is still quite challenging.

OncLive: With sequencing, what are the main questions that we’re still trying to answer?

Strosberg: If we take, for example, NETs of the midgut, beyond first-line somatostatin analogs, physicians and patients often face decisions regarding where to proceed next, and for some patients with liver-dominant disease, liver-directed therapies are still an option.

For others, everolimus is a systemic option, and then hopefully lutetium dotatate will be an option based on approval of the drug, which is currently pending. Knowing how to choose among those 3 options is going to be a challenge, and I think there will be debates. Hopefully, clinical trials that compare one agent to another can help doctors make that choice. It’s even more complicated for pancreatic NETs. Beyond somatostatin analogs, we have about 5 choices—we have everolimus, sunitinib (Sutent), cytotoxic chemotherapy, liver-directed therapy, and peptide receptor radiotherapy. It’s even more challenging in that area.

OncLive: Are there any other ongoing clinical trials with some of these agents that you’re particularly excited about?

Strosberg: There’s a trial that is slated to take place in Europe which will compare lutetium dotatate with everolimus in advanced pancreatic NETs, and I think that’s going to be a very important trial that will help us get some information on both sequencing of these drugs, as well as the efficacy of Lutathera in the pancreatic NET population, based on well-run prospective clinical trials. I’m particularly looking forward to that trial.

OncLive: Looking to the future, what are some of the immediate challenges you hope to tackle with NETs?

Strosberg: One area of particular need is poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. That’s a field that’s traditionally been understudied. There have been very few prospective clinical trials looking at this particular population, and we’re hoping that will change in the near future. There are a number of trials taking place looking at immunotherapy drugs. If these agents work anywhere in the neuroendocrine sphere, they are more likely to work in poorly differentiated or high-grade tumors, in my opinion, given the mutational profile of these cancers. So that’s something I’m particularly looking forward to being able to offer these patients something other than the cisplatin/etoposide combination that goes back decades, and is of short-lasting duration.

See more at: http://www.onclive.com/publications/oncology-live/2016/vol-17-no-24/expert-discusses-recent-progress-in-net-management#sthash.ypkilX2A.dpuf

Thanks for reading

Ronny

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

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

community_titled_transparent_2013-10-22

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.  I could come up with other terms in about 5 minutes.

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

 

The Mother of all Surgeries

surgery
Surgery

My plan for this week’s blog was to continue with a surgery theme using the story of a lady who had what was described as the “Mother of all Surgeries” after being late diagnosed with a very rare and advanced type of appendiceal cancer. With NETs, surgery is a topical subject as not everyone will be able to have it and some might not even need it. Check out my blog to cut or not to cut.

I suggested in a previous blog that Surgery is a gift that keeps on giving and that is probably true for many cancer survivors. However, I then added that NETs were one of a small number of tumours for which surgical debulking can provide some survival advantage for those with metastatic and incurable disease. In my own case, I’ve had my primary removed as part of a small intestine resection and a right hemicolectomy ‘en bloc’ – plus a bunch of mesenteric and retroperitoneal ‘stuff’. Other metastases were removed at a later date including a 66% liver resection (which included an opportunistic removal of gall bladder for treatment side effect control), 9 lymph nodes removed from my left axillary area (armpit), 5 lymph nodes removed left clavicle area and two hotspots are still under investigation.  I’m now under constant surveillance but I’m doing OK …… and I intend to outlive my Oncologist 🙂

However, my experience would appear to be fairly straightforward when you consider the types of surgery some Neuroendocrine Patients with a Pancreatic primary (pNET) have to undergo. These include the ‘Whipples’, ‘Distal Pancreatectomy or ‘Total Pancreatectomy’.  These are all long and complex operations which remove numerous organs or parts of organs – and no doubt there are variants of these for unusual scenarios.

Although there are long term side effects from my surgery, I’m gradually adjusting my lifestyle to cope (a work in progress, even after 8 years!).  This is mainly through (not too drastic) diet adjustments and nutritional level surveillance.  My other weapon is to learn as much as I can about my disease in order that I can learn how best to live with the side effects of both the cancer and the treatment. Despite the extent of my surgery (to date) and my cancer’s stage, I still consider myself fortunate to have been diagnosed earlier than the average for this disease (….sheer luck) and then had access to what some might describe as aggressive surgery shortly after.  I suspect 7 years of ‘Lanreotide’ is also playing a big part.

My experience has given me the incentive to read a lot and occasionally I come across articles about cancer patients who have been treated surgically for very unusual cancers – even less common than NET Cancer.  One which recently caught my eye was a lady who had been diagnosed with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP).  This is a very rare condition (1 in every 1,000,000) characterised by the presence of mucin-producing tumours (and the mucin) in the abdominal cavity. There are a number of possible origins of PMP, but the most common source is appendiceal (appendix) cancer.  If you’re interested in learning more, further information can be found here.

When I was drafting this blog a couple of years ago, I had been carefully watching the story unfold about the death of respected ESPN anchor Stuart Scott from an “appendiceal cancer”.

RIP Stuart Scott
RIP Stuart Scott

The media presented a confusing picture about the exact type of cancer Stuart had and some of you will have seen the debate on social media. It’s amazing how quickly and ‘assumption’ can circulate to thousands of people in a very short space of time.  I read conflicting mainsteam media articles and social media posts; some referred to the disease as ‘gastrointestinal carcinoid’ and others insisted that it was unrelated to NETs. As the dust settled, it appears his appendiceal cancer was not a Neuroendocrine Tumor.

On the same subject, many NET patients claim Audrey Hepburn was a NET Patient but this is not accurate, she had PMP.

Back to the Mother of all Surgeries story ………

I was totally amazed by the extent of the surgery the lady had to undergo and wondered how she was going to cope with the side effects.  She was clearly an extreme case and many patients are caught early on and treated accordingly. They removed her appendix, large bowel, most of her small bowel, gall bladder, spleen, womb, ovaries, fallopian tubes and cervix as well as most of her stomach lining and navel.  Her surgery was described as the “Mother of all Surgeries” and included a 90 minute ‘chemo bath’ (formally known as Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)). Interestingly she was originally diagnosed with IBS, a similar scenario to many NET patients. I was also struck by the similarities of some of the symptoms with those found in NET Cancer.

The UK is very well equipped to deal with PMP and HIPEC with two centres in Basingstoke and Manchester renowned worldwide as treatment centres for this rare condition.

You can read more here about this amazing story where the patient had 9 organs removed.

And another here –  “9 organs removed”

And another here – “tumour weighing one stone”

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