Jose Eduardo Nuñez1,2, Mauro Donadio1, Duilio Rocha Filho3, Juliana Florinda Rego4, Milton Barros1, Maria Nirvana Formiga1, Rossana Lopez5, Rachel Riechelmann1. 1. Medical Oncology Department, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 3. Clinical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario Walter Cantidio, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. 4. Unit of Hematology and Oncology, Hospital Universitario Onofre Lopes, Natal, RN, Brazil. 5. Centro Internacional de Pesquisa, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperactivation of mTOR pathway and angiogenesis have been implicated in the pathogenesis of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of mTOR, and sunitinib, an antiangiogenic drug, are effective targeted therapies approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Most pNETs are sporadic and mutations in genes involved directly or indirectly in mTOR pathway regulation have been implicated, including somatic mutation in MEN1 in 44% of cases. About 10% of pNETs can be part of hereditary syndromes, e.g., multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) and Von-Hippel Lindau (VHL), and these patients are underrepresented in pivotal phase III trials. We hypothesized that everolimus would be particularly effective in patients with MEN1-associated pNETs. Likewise, we inferred that sunitinib would also be beneficial to patients with VHL-associated pNETs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective and comparative study to assess the efficacy of everolimus and/or sunitinib in a cohort of patients with advanced pNETs with or without known MEN1 or VHL syndrome. The evaluation of the germline mutational status of VHL and MEN1 genes was retrospectively collected from the medical records. The primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) of patients who received at least one month of sunitinib or everolimus in monotherapy. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were identified from September 2009 to April 2018. Most were male 60.6%. Median Ki67 was 9%, liver metastases were present in 97%. The majority of tumors were non-functioning. Thirty-one patients received everolimus, of them 8 patients had germline mutations (6 in MEN1 and 2 in VHL genes). Nine patients received sunitinib, of them 3 had germline mutation (2 in MEN1 and 1 in VHL genes). In a median follow up of 26 months, among everolimus-treated patients, mTTF and mPFS were numerically superior in patients with germline mutations compared with those with sporadic pNETs (mTTF: 16.1 vs. 9.9 months, P=0.888; mPFS: 33.1 vs. 12.3 months, P=0.383). The disease control rate with everolimus was numerically higher in favor of germline mutated tumors compared to sporadic ones (87.5% vs. 68.4%). Sunitinib was used by 1 patient with VHL syndrome, achieving a PFS of 17.6 months. In the subgroup of sporadic pNETs, sunitinib was used by 6 patients reaching a mPFS of 18 months (range, 5-25 months), predominantly in second line. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that everolimus may offer a prolonged tumor control in pNETS with germline mutations (MEN1 or VHL) compared to sporadic ones. The small number of patients and the retrospective nature of this study precludes any definitive conclusions.
BACKGROUND: Hyperactivation of mTOR pathway and angiogenesis have been implicated in the pathogenesis of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of mTOR, and sunitinib, an antiangiogenic drug, are effective targeted therapies approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Most pNETs are sporadic and mutations in genes involved directly or indirectly in mTOR pathway regulation have been implicated, including somatic mutation in MEN1 in 44% of cases. About 10% of pNETs can be part of hereditary syndromes, e.g., multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) and Von-Hippel Lindau (VHL), and these patients are underrepresented in pivotal phase III trials. We hypothesized that everolimus would be particularly effective in patients with MEN1-associated pNETs. Likewise, we inferred that sunitinib would also be beneficial to patients with VHL-associated pNETs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective and comparative study to assess the efficacy of everolimus and/or sunitinib in a cohort of patients with advanced pNETs with or without known MEN1 or VHL syndrome. The evaluation of the germline mutational status of VHL and MEN1 genes was retrospectively collected from the medical records. The primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) of patients who received at least one month of sunitinib or everolimus in monotherapy. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were identified from September 2009 to April 2018. Most were male 60.6%. Median Ki67 was 9%, liver metastases were present in 97%. The majority of tumors were non-functioning. Thirty-one patients received everolimus, of them 8 patients had germline mutations (6 in MEN1 and 2 in VHL genes). Nine patients received sunitinib, of them 3 had germline mutation (2 in MEN1 and 1 in VHL genes). In a median follow up of 26 months, among everolimus-treated patients, mTTF and mPFS were numerically superior in patients with germline mutations compared with those with sporadic pNETs (mTTF: 16.1 vs. 9.9 months, P=0.888; mPFS: 33.1 vs. 12.3 months, P=0.383). The disease control rate with everolimus was numerically higher in favor of germline mutated tumors compared to sporadic ones (87.5% vs. 68.4%). Sunitinib was used by 1 patient with VHL syndrome, achieving a PFS of 17.6 months. In the subgroup of sporadic pNETs, sunitinib was used by 6 patients reaching a mPFS of 18 months (range, 5-25 months), predominantly in second line. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that everolimus may offer a prolonged tumor control in pNETS with germline mutations (MEN1 or VHL) compared to sporadic ones. The small number of patients and the retrospective nature of this study precludes any definitive conclusions.
Authors: Frederic Triponez; David Dosseh; Pierre Goudet; Patrick Cougard; Catherine Bauters; Arnaud Murat; Guillaume Cadiot; Patricia Niccoli-Sire; Jean-Alain Chayvialle; Alain Calender; Charles A G Proye Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maria A Kouvaraki; Suzanne E Shapiro; Gilbert J Cote; Jeffrey E Lee; James C Yao; Steven G Waguespack; Robert F Gagel; Douglas B Evans; Nancy D Perrier Journal: World J Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: P R Hammel; V Vilgrain; B Terris; A Penfornis; A Sauvanet; J M Correas; D Chauveau; A Balian; C Beigelman; D O'Toole; P Bernades; P Ruszniewski; S Richard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Edwin P Hui; Anthony T C Chan; Francesco Pezzella; Helen Turley; Ka-Fai To; Terence C W Poon; Benny Zee; Frankie Mo; Peter M L Teo; Dolly P Huang; Kevin C Gatter; Philip J Johnson; Adrian L Harris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 12.531
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 M Ruggeri; E Benevento; F De Cicco; B Fazzalari; E Guadagno; I Hasballa; M G Tarsitano; A M Isidori; A Colao; A Faggiano Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 5.467
Authors: Sven Gläsker; Evelynn Vergauwen; Christian A Koch; Alexander Kutikov; Alexander O Vortmeyer Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maria Luisa Brandi; Sunita K Agarwal; Nancy D Perrier; Kate E Lines; Gerlof D Valk; Rajesh V Thakker Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 19.871