PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is a relatively new treatment modality for patients with unresectable or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP NETs). The aim of this study was to determine the time to progression of patients treated with PRRT and to identify the prognostic factors related to treatment response. METHODS: Patients with sporadic GEP NETs prospectively treated with PRRT were retrospectively analysed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (37 men and 32 women; 45 with pancreatic and 24 with gastrointestinal lesion; 22 NET G1 and 41 NET G2) were treated with (90)Y or (177)Lu. The objective response rate was 27.5% (partial response, PR), while 50.7% had stable disease and 23.2% had progressive disease. Significant differences in PFS were observed in relationship to the stage of the disease (44 months for stage III, 23 months for stage IV), the evidence of a PR 6 months after the end of the PRRT (39 months in patients with a PR, 22 months in patients without a PR) and previous transarterial chemoembolization (TACE, yes 13 months vs no 31 months). Stage IV, NET G2 and previous TACE were found to be significant factors for tumour progression at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Low tumour burden and a low proliferation index represent independent prognostic factors for long PFS, while previous chemoembolization techniques represent independent prognostic factors for early tumour progression and shorter PFS. Our data suggest that chemoembolization techniques to reduce the hepatic tumour burden should be avoided.
PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is a relatively new treatment modality for patients with unresectable or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP NETs). The aim of this study was to determine the time to progression of patients treated with PRRT and to identify the prognostic factors related to treatment response. METHODS:Patients with sporadic GEP NETs prospectively treated with PRRT were retrospectively analysed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (37 men and 32 women; 45 with pancreatic and 24 with gastrointestinal lesion; 22 NET G1 and 41 NET G2) were treated with (90)Y or (177)Lu. The objective response rate was 27.5% (partial response, PR), while 50.7% had stable disease and 23.2% had progressive disease. Significant differences in PFS were observed in relationship to the stage of the disease (44 months for stage III, 23 months for stage IV), the evidence of a PR 6 months after the end of the PRRT (39 months in patients with a PR, 22 months in patients without a PR) and previous transarterial chemoembolization (TACE, yes 13 months vs no 31 months). Stage IV, NET G2 and previous TACE were found to be significant factors for tumour progression at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION:Low tumour burden and a low proliferation index represent independent prognostic factors for long PFS, while previous chemoembolization techniques represent independent prognostic factors for early tumour progression and shorter PFS. Our data suggest that chemoembolization techniques to reduce the hepatic tumour burden should be avoided.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christian Waldherr; Miklos Pless; Helmut R Maecke; Tilmann Schumacher; Armin Crazzolara; Egbert U Nitzsche; Andreas Haldemann; Jan Mueller-Brand Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Bettini; L Boninsegna; W Mantovani; P Capelli; C Bassi; P Pederzoli; G F Delle Fave; F Panzuto; A Scarpa; M Falconi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Anja Rinke; Hans-Helge Müller; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Klaus-Jochen Klose; Peter Barth; Matthias Wied; Christina Mayer; Behnaz Aminossadati; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Michael Bläker; Jan Harder; Christian Arnold; Thomas Gress; Rudolf Arnold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Rindi; G Klöppel; H Alhman; M Caplin; A Couvelard; W W de Herder; B Erikssson; A Falchetti; M Falconi; P Komminoth; M Körner; J M Lopes; A-M McNicol; O Nilsson; A Perren; A Scarpa; J-Y Scoazec; B Wiedenmann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: G Kong; M Thompson; M Collins; A Herschtal; M S Hofman; V Johnston; P Eu; M Michael; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 9.236