PURPOSE: Increased glycolytic activity on FDG PET/CT defines a subgroup of patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) with a poor prognosis. A limited range of systemic treatment options exist for more aggressive NET. The role of peptide receptor chemoradionuclide therapy (PRCRT) in such patients is, however, unclear. This retrospective study assessed the outcomes of patients with FDG-avid NET treated with PRCRT. METHODS: Clinical, biochemical and imaging response was assessed after completion of induction treatment of PRCRT with 5-fluorouracil in 52 patients selected for treatment on the basis of somatostatin-receptor imaging without spatially discordant FDG-avid disease. Of the cohort, 67% had received prior chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were also analysed. RESULTS: PRCRT was well tolerated with negligible grade 3/4 toxicities. After a median follow-up period of 36 months, the median OS was not achieved with a median PFS of 48 months. At 3 months after completion of PRCRT 2% of patients showed a complete anatomical response, 28% a partial response, 68% stable disease, and only 2% progression. On FDG PET/CT, 27% achieved a complete metabolic response during the follow-up period. A biochemical response (>25% fall in chromogranin-A levels) was seen in 45%. CONCLUSION: PRCRT is an effective treatment in patients with FDG-avid NET, even in patients who have failed conventional therapies. Given apparently higher response rates than with alternative therapeutic options and low toxicity, further research is needed to establish whether PRCRT should be used as a first-line treatment modality in this patient population.
PURPOSE: Increased glycolytic activity on FDG PET/CT defines a subgroup of patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) with a poor prognosis. A limited range of systemic treatment options exist for more aggressive NET. The role of peptide receptor chemoradionuclide therapy (PRCRT) in such patients is, however, unclear. This retrospective study assessed the outcomes of patients with FDG-avid NET treated with PRCRT. METHODS: Clinical, biochemical and imaging response was assessed after completion of induction treatment of PRCRT with 5-fluorouracil in 52 patients selected for treatment on the basis of somatostatin-receptor imaging without spatially discordant FDG-avid disease. Of the cohort, 67% had received prior chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were also analysed. RESULTS: PRCRT was well tolerated with negligible grade 3/4 toxicities. After a median follow-up period of 36 months, the median OS was not achieved with a median PFS of 48 months. At 3 months after completion of PRCRT 2% of patients showed a complete anatomical response, 28% a partial response, 68% stable disease, and only 2% progression. On FDG PET/CT, 27% achieved a complete metabolic response during the follow-up period. A biochemical response (>25% fall in chromogranin-A levels) was seen in 45%. CONCLUSION: PRCRT is an effective treatment in patients with FDG-avid NET, even in patients who have failed conventional therapies. Given apparently higher response rates than with alternative therapeutic options and low toxicity, further research is needed to establish whether PRCRT should be used as a first-line treatment modality in this patient population.
Authors: Marianne Pavel; Eric Baudin; Anne Couvelard; Eric Krenning; Kjell Öberg; Thomas Steinmüller; Martin Anlauf; Bertram Wiedenmann; Ramon Salazar Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Linda Villard; Anna Romer; Nicolas Marincek; Philippe Brunner; Michael T Koller; Christian Schindler; Quinn K T Ng; Helmut R Mäcke; Jan Müller-Brand; Christoph Rochlitz; Matthias Briel; Martin A Walter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
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: E P Krenning; R Valkema; P P Kooij; W A Breeman; W H Bakker; W W deHerder; C H vanEijck; D J Kwekkeboom; M deJong; S Pauwels Journal: Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 1999-10
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: James C Yao; Alexandria T Phan; David Z Chang; Robert A Wolff; Kenneth Hess; Sanjay Gupta; Carmen Jacobs; Jeannette E Mares; Andrea N Landgraf; Asif Rashid; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria P Brizzi; Alfredo Berruti; Anna Ferrero; Enrica Milanesi; Marco Volante; Federico Castiglione; Nadia Birocco; Sebastiano Bombaci; Davide Perroni; Benedetta Ferretti; Oscar Alabiso; Libero Ciuffreda; Oscar Bertetto; Mauro Papotti; Luigi Dogliotti Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Grace Kong; Jason Callahan; Michael S Hofman; David A Pattison; Tim Akhurst; Michael Michael; Peter Eu; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sue Ping Thang; Mei Sim Lung; Grace Kong; Michael S Hofman; Jason Callahan; Michael Michael; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 9.236