Mairéad G McNamara1, Melissa Frizziero2, Timothy Jacobs3, Angela Lamarca2, Richard A Hubner2, Juan W Valle2, Eitan Amir4. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust/Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 3. Medical library, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced extra-pulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-PD-NEC). This study explored data evaluating second-line treatment in these patients. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified studies reporting survival and/or response data for patients with EP-PD-NEC receiving second-line therapy. Association between various factors (age, gender, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, morphology, Ki-67, treatment and grade 3/4 haematological toxicity) and response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed with a mixed effects meta-regression weighted by individual study sample size. Due to a small sample size, associations were reported quantitatively, based on magnitude of beta coefficient rather than statistical significance. RESULTS: Of 83 identified studies, 19 were eligible, including 4 prospective and 15 retrospective studies. Analysis comprised 582 patients, with a median number of 19 patients in each study (range 5-100). Median age was 59 years (range 53-66). Median RR was 18% (range 0-50; 0% for single-agent everolimus, temozolomide, topotecan; 50% with amrubicin), median PFS was 2.5 months (range 1.15-6.0) and median OS was 7.64 months (range 3.2-22.0). Studies with a higher proportion of patients with a Ki-67>55% had lower RR (β = -0.73) and shorter OS (β = -0.82). CONCLUSION: Second-line therapy for patients with advanced EP-PD-NEC has limited efficacy and the variety of regimens used is diverse. Ki-67>55% is associated with worse outcomes. Prospective randomised studies are warranted to enable exploration of new treatment strategies.
BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced extra-pulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-PD-NEC). This study explored data evaluating second-line treatment in these patients. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified studies reporting survival and/or response data for patients with EP-PD-NEC receiving second-line therapy. Association between various factors (age, gender, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, morphology, Ki-67, treatment and grade 3/4 haematological toxicity) and response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed with a mixed effects meta-regression weighted by individual study sample size. Due to a small sample size, associations were reported quantitatively, based on magnitude of beta coefficient rather than statistical significance. RESULTS: Of 83 identified studies, 19 were eligible, including 4 prospective and 15 retrospective studies. Analysis comprised 582 patients, with a median number of 19 patients in each study (range 5-100). Median age was 59 years (range 53-66). Median RR was 18% (range 0-50; 0% for single-agent everolimus, temozolomide, topotecan; 50% with amrubicin), median PFS was 2.5 months (range 1.15-6.0) and median OS was 7.64 months (range 3.2-22.0). Studies with a higher proportion of patients with a Ki-67>55% had lower RR (β = -0.73) and shorter OS (β = -0.82). CONCLUSION: Second-line therapy for patients with advanced EP-PD-NEC has limited efficacy and the variety of regimens used is diverse. Ki-67>55% is associated with worse outcomes. Prospective randomised studies are warranted to enable exploration of new treatment strategies.
Authors: Tone Hoel Lende; Emiel A M Janssen; Einar Gudlaugsson; Feja Voorhorst; Rune Smaaland; Paul van Diest; Håvard Søiland; Jan P A Baak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ingrid H Olsen; Jens B Sørensen; Birgitte Federspiel; Andreas Kjaer; Carsten P Hansen; Ulrich Knigge; Seppo W Langer Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2012-08-22
Authors: Paula Espinosa-Olarte; Anna La Salvia; Maria C Riesco-Martinez; Beatriz Anton-Pascual; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero Journal: Rev Endocr Metab Disord Date: 2021-04-11 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Sonja Levy; Wieke H M Verbeek; Ferry A L M Eskens; José G van den Berg; Derk Jan A de Groot; Monique E van Leerdam; Margot E T Tesselaar Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 8.168