Reto M Kaderli1, Marko Spanjol2, Attila Kollár3, Lukas Bütikofer4, Viktoria Gloy2, Rebecca A Dumont2, Christian A Seiler1, Emanuel R Christ5, Piotr Radojewski2, Matthias Briel6,7, Martin A Walter2. 1. Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Clinical Trials Unit Bern, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Basel University Hospital, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, Basel University Hospital, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Multiple therapies are currently available for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), yet many therapies have not been compared head-to-head within randomized clinical trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, meeting abstracts, and reference lists from January 1, 1947, to March 2, 2018, were searched. Key search terms included neuroendocrine tumors, gastrointestinal neoplasms, therapy, and randomized controlled trial. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials comparing 2 or more therapies in patients with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic) were evaluated. Thirty RCTs met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Disease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 30 relevant RCTs comprising 3895 patients (48.4% women) assigned to 22 different therapies for NETs. These therapies showed a broad range of risk for serious and nonserious adverse events. The network meta-analyses included 16 RCTs with predominantly a low risk of bias; nevertheless, precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited. The network meta-analysis found 7 therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.25-0.51]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.75]), interferon (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.16-0.83]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.71]), somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]), and sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.67]), and 5 therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.05-0.99]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11-0.90]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.07-0.96]), Lu 177-dotatate plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.26], and somatostatin analogues (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78]) with higher efficacy than placebo and suggests an overall superiority of combination therapies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for patients with NETs.
IMPORTANCE: Multiple therapies are currently available for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), yet many therapies have not been compared head-to-head within randomized clinical trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, meeting abstracts, and reference lists from January 1, 1947, to March 2, 2018, were searched. Key search terms included neuroendocrine tumors, gastrointestinal neoplasms, therapy, and randomized controlled trial. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials comparing 2 or more therapies in patients with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic) were evaluated. Thirty RCTs met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Disease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 30 relevant RCTs comprising 3895 patients (48.4% women) assigned to 22 different therapies for NETs. These therapies showed a broad range of risk for serious and nonserious adverse events. The network meta-analyses included 16 RCTs with predominantly a low risk of bias; nevertheless, precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited. The network meta-analysis found 7 therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.25-0.51]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.75]), interferon (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.16-0.83]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.71]), somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]), and sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.67]), and 5 therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.05-0.99]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11-0.90]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.07-0.96]), Lu 177-dotatate plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.26], and somatostatin analogues (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78]) with higher efficacy than placebo and suggests an overall superiority of combination therapies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for patients with NETs.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marianne E Pavel; Simron Singh; Jonathan R Strosberg; Lida Bubuteishvili-Pacaud; Evgeny Degtyarev; Maureen P Neary; Carlo Carnaghi; Jiri Tomasek; Edward Wolin; Markus Raderer; Harald Lahner; Juan W Valle; Rodney Pommier; Eric Van Cutsem; Margot E T Tesselaar; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Roberto Buzzoni; Matthias Hunger; Jennifer Eriksson; David Cella; Jean-François Ricci; Nicola Fazio; Matthew H Kulke; James C Yao Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James C Yao; Marianne Pavel; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Eric Van Cutsem; Maurizio Voi; Ulrike Brandt; Wei He; David Chen; Jaume Capdevila; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Paola Tomassetti; Timothy Hobday; Rodney Pommier; Kjell Öberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S B Saslow; J S Scolapio; M Camilleri; L A Forstrom; G M Thomforde; D D Burton; J Rubin; H C Pitot; A R Zinsmeister Journal: Gut Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: James C Yao; Nicola Fazio; Simron Singh; Roberto Buzzoni; Carlo Carnaghi; Edward Wolin; Jiri Tomasek; Markus Raderer; Harald Lahner; Maurizio Voi; Lida Bubuteishvili Pacaud; Nicolas Rouyrre; Carolin Sachs; Juan W Valle; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Eric Van Cutsem; Margot Tesselaar; Yasuhiro Shimada; Do-Youn Oh; Jonathan Strosberg; Matthew H Kulke; Marianne E Pavel Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James C Yao; Alexandria Phan; Paulo M Hoff; Helen X Chen; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Sai-Ching J Yeung; Kenneth Hess; Chaan Ng; James L Abbruzzese; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aaron I Vinik; Edward M Wolin; Nilani Liyanage; Edda Gomez-Panzani; George A Fisher Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tim Meyer; Wendi Qian; Martyn E Caplin; Graham Armstrong; Si-Houy Lao-Sirieix; Richard Hardy; Juan W Valle; Denis C Talbot; David Cunningham; Nick Reed; Ashley Shaw; Shaunak Navalkissoor; Tu-Vinh Luong; Pippa G Corrie Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Amit Tirosh; Jonathan Keith Killian; David Petersen; Yuelin Jack Zhu; Robert L Walker; Jenny E Blau; Naris Nilubol; Dhaval Patel; Sunita K Agarwal; Lee Scott Weinstein; Paul Meltzer; Electron Kebebew Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ashley Kieran Clift; Mark Kidd; Lisa Bodei; Christos Toumpanakis; Richard P Baum; Kjell Oberg; Irvin M Modlin; Andrea Frilling Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 5.135
Authors: J Li; Y Cheng; C Bai; J Xu; L Shen; J Li; Z Zhou; Z Li; Y Chi; X Yu; E Li; N Xu; T Liu; W Lou; Y Bai; X Yuan; X Wang; Y Yuan; J Chen; S Guan; S Fan; W Su Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2022-03-25