A Lamarca1,2, M Frizziero3, J Barriuso3,4, M G McNamara3,5, R A Hubner3, J W Valle6,7. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. angela.lamarca@christie.nhs.uk. 2. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. angela.lamarca@christie.nhs.uk. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. 4. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 5. Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (MAHSC), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. juan.valle@christie.nhs.uk. 7. Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (MAHSC), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. juan.valle@christie.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platinum-etoposide (PE) chemotherapy (CH) is a globally established combination for extra-pulmonary high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-G3-NEC); the optimal schedule has not been established. METHODS: An international survey was designed, and completed by clinicians with an expertise in the field to assess consistency in clinical practice. RESULTS: Seventy-five replies were received (June-Nov'17). A minority of physicians (13; 17.6%) did not take Ki-67 or morphology (9; 12.0%) into consideration for selection of CH. Most (72; 96.0%) selected PE-CH as first-line treatment for EP-G3-NEC. CH schedules varied: cisplatin-based (37/71; 52.1%), carboplatin-based (34/71; 47.9%); intravenous etoposide (64/71; 90.1%), oral etoposide (7/71; 9.9%). Choice of second-line CH depended on time to progression on PE-based first-line: if > 6 months, re-challenge with PE was the preferred choice (34; 45.9%); if < 6 months, alternative combinations such as fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan (21; 29.2%) or temozolomide/capecitabine (22; 30.6%) were used. CONCLUSION: Significant variation in PE regimen employed exists. Standardising clinical practice would facilitate clinical trial development.
BACKGROUND:Platinum-etoposide (PE) chemotherapy (CH) is a globally established combination for extra-pulmonary high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-G3-NEC); the optimal schedule has not been established. METHODS: An international survey was designed, and completed by clinicians with an expertise in the field to assess consistency in clinical practice. RESULTS: Seventy-five replies were received (June-Nov'17). A minority of physicians (13; 17.6%) did not take Ki-67 or morphology (9; 12.0%) into consideration for selection of CH. Most (72; 96.0%) selected PE-CH as first-line treatment for EP-G3-NEC. CH schedules varied: cisplatin-based (37/71; 52.1%), carboplatin-based (34/71; 47.9%); intravenous etoposide (64/71; 90.1%), oral etoposide (7/71; 9.9%). Choice of second-line CH depended on time to progression on PE-based first-line: if > 6 months, re-challenge with PE was the preferred choice (34; 45.9%); if < 6 months, alternative combinations such as fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan (21; 29.2%) or temozolomide/capecitabine (22; 30.6%) were used. CONCLUSION: Significant variation in PE regimen employed exists. Standardising clinical practice would facilitate clinical trial development.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinoma; Chemotherapy; High grade; Neuroendocrine; Practice; Survey
Authors: R Garcia-Carbonero; H Sorbye; E Baudin; E Raymond; B Wiedenmann; B Niederle; E Sedlackova; C Toumpanakis; M Anlauf; J B Cwikla; M Caplin; D O'Toole; A Perren Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: M Heetfeld; C N Chougnet; I H Olsen; A Rinke; I Borbath; G Crespo; J Barriuso; M Pavel; D O'Toole; T Walter Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Angela Lamarca; Thomas Walter; Marianne Pavel; Ivan Borbath; Patricia Freis; Barbara Nuñez; Alexa Childs; Mairéad G McNamara; Richard A Hubner; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Tim Meyer; Juan W Valle; Jorge Barriuso Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H Sorbye; S Welin; S W Langer; L W Vestermark; N Holt; P Osterlund; S Dueland; E Hofsli; M G Guren; K Ohrling; E Birkemeyer; E Thiis-Evensen; M Biagini; H Gronbaek; L M Soveri; I H Olsen; B Federspiel; J Assmus; E T Janson; U Knigge Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Arvind Dasari; Chan Shen; Daniel Halperin; Bo Zhao; Shouhao Zhou; Ying Xu; Tina Shih; James C Yao Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: E Mitry; E Baudin; M Ducreux; J C Sabourin; P Rufié; T Aparicio; T Aparicio; P Lasser; D Elias; P Duvillard; M Schlumberger; P Rougier Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jasna Metovic; Anna La Salvia; Ida Rapa; Francesca Napoli; Nadia Birocco; Maria Pia Bizzi; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Libero Ciuffreda; Giorgio Scagliotti; Mauro Papotti; Marco Volante Journal: Endocr Pathol Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.056