M H Kulke1, P Ruszniewski2, E Van Cutsem3, C Lombard-Bohas4, J W Valle5, W W De Herder6, M Pavel7, E Degtyarev8, J C Brase8, L Bubuteishvili-Pacaud8, M Voi9, R Salazar10, I Borbath11, N Fazio12, D Smith13, J Capdevila14, R P Riechelmann15, J C Yao16. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology University of Paris VII and Beaujon Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg/Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Manchester/The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK. 6. Department of Endocrine Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Charité University of Medicine, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Oncology, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland. 9. Department of Oncology, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, USA. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 11. Department of Gastroenterology Saint-Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. 12. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 13. Department of Oncology, St. Andrew Hospital, Bordeaux, France. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 15. Department of Oncology, Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 16. Department of Gastrointestinal and Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Abstract
Background: Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.
RCT Entities:
Background: Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.
Authors: Jaume Capdevila; Alexandre Teulé; Jorge Barriuso; Daniel Castellano; Carlos Lopez; Jose Luis Manzano; Vicente Alonso; Rocío García-Carbonero; Emma Dotor; Ignacio Matos; Ana Custodio; Oriol Casanovas; Ramon Salazar Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Eric Liu; Scott Paulson; Anthony Gulati; Jon Freudman; William Grosh; Sheldon Kafer; Prasanna C Wickremesinghe; Ronald R Salem; Lisa Bodei Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-29
Authors: Chandra K Maharjan; Po Hien Ear; Catherine G Tran; James R Howe; Chandrikha Chandrasekharan; Dawn E Quelle Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Martin A Walter; Cédric Nesti; Marko Spanjol; Attila Kollár; Lukas Bütikofer; Viktoria L Gloy; Rebecca A Dumont; Christian A Seiler; Emanuel R Christ; Piotr Radojewski; Matthias Briel; Reto M Kaderli Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-25
Authors: Reto M Kaderli; Marko Spanjol; Attila Kollár; Lukas Bütikofer; Viktoria Gloy; Rebecca A Dumont; Christian A Seiler; Emanuel R Christ; Piotr Radojewski; Matthias Briel; Martin A Walter Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777