Comparing Somatostatin Analogs in the Treatment of Advanced Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.


Journal

Oncology
ISSN: 1423-0232
Titre abrégé: Oncology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0135054

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 29 07 2021
accepted: 24 08 2021
pubmed: 26 1 2022
medline: 9 3 2022
entrez: 25 1 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The 2 approved somatostatin analogs (SSAs) in the first-line treatment of advanced, well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are octreotide long-acting release (Sandostatin LAR) and somatuline depot (Lanreotide). The study's objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients (pts) with GEP-NETs treated with somatuline or octreotide LAR. Pts and Methods: Pts with advanced well-differentiated GEP-NET who received either SSA at Emory University between 1995 and 2019 were included after institutional review board approval. The primary end point was PFS, defined as time to disease progression (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or clinical progression) or death. The secondary end point was OS. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and log-rank tests were conducted to compare the survival outcomes. A total of 105 pts were identified. The mean age was 62.1 years (SD ± 11.8). The male-to-female ratio was 51:54. The majority (N = 69, 65.7%) were white. Most pts had grade 2 (G2) disease (N = 44, 41.9%). Primary location was small bowel in 58 (55.2%), pancreas in 27 (25.7%), and other in 20 (19.0%). Functional tumors were defined in 32 pts distributed equally between the 2 groups. Distribution of treatment was similar in the 2 groups, with 54 receiving octreotide LAR and 51 receiving somatuline depot. The median PFS for the octreotide LAR and somatuline depot groups was 12 months (95% CI, 6-18 months) and 10.8 months (95% CI, 6-15.6 months), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2665). For pts with G1 disease, the median PFS for the octreotide LAR and somatuline depot was 8.4 versus 32.4 months, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.159). For G2 disease, the difference in median PFS between octreotide LAR and somutaline depot groups was statistically significant (12 vs. 7.2 months, respectively; p = 0.0372). The mean follow-up time for octreotide LAR was 21.6 months versus 11.3 months for somatuline depot. Overall, there was no difference in PFS between octreotide LAR and somatuline depot for pts with well-differentiated, metastatic GEP-NETs. A prospective study is worth designing selecting for G.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The 2 approved somatostatin analogs (SSAs) in the first-line treatment of advanced, well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are octreotide long-acting release (Sandostatin LAR) and somatuline depot (Lanreotide). The study's objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients (pts) with GEP-NETs treated with somatuline or octreotide LAR. Pts and Methods: Pts with advanced well-differentiated GEP-NET who received either SSA at Emory University between 1995 and 2019 were included after institutional review board approval. The primary end point was PFS, defined as time to disease progression (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or clinical progression) or death. The secondary end point was OS. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and log-rank tests were conducted to compare the survival outcomes.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 105 pts were identified. The mean age was 62.1 years (SD ± 11.8). The male-to-female ratio was 51:54. The majority (N = 69, 65.7%) were white. Most pts had grade 2 (G2) disease (N = 44, 41.9%). Primary location was small bowel in 58 (55.2%), pancreas in 27 (25.7%), and other in 20 (19.0%). Functional tumors were defined in 32 pts distributed equally between the 2 groups. Distribution of treatment was similar in the 2 groups, with 54 receiving octreotide LAR and 51 receiving somatuline depot. The median PFS for the octreotide LAR and somatuline depot groups was 12 months (95% CI, 6-18 months) and 10.8 months (95% CI, 6-15.6 months), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2665). For pts with G1 disease, the median PFS for the octreotide LAR and somatuline depot was 8.4 versus 32.4 months, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.159). For G2 disease, the difference in median PFS between octreotide LAR and somutaline depot groups was statistically significant (12 vs. 7.2 months, respectively; p = 0.0372). The mean follow-up time for octreotide LAR was 21.6 months versus 11.3 months for somatuline depot.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there was no difference in PFS between octreotide LAR and somatuline depot for pts with well-differentiated, metastatic GEP-NETs. A prospective study is worth designing selecting for G.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35078191
pii: 000519605
doi: 10.1159/000519605
pmc: PMC9052205
mid: NIHMS1799215
doi:

Substances chimiques

Peptides, Cyclic 0
sandostatinLAR 0
lanreotide 0G3DE8943Y
Somatostatin 51110-01-1
Octreotide RWM8CCW8GP

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

131-139

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA138292
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Références

Cancer. 1996 Jan 15;77(2):402-8
pubmed: 8625251
Neoplasia. 2017 Dec;19(12):991-1002
pubmed: 29091800
Br J Cancer. 1998 Feb;77(4):632-7
pubmed: 9484822
J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Jul;45(7):836-44
pubmed: 15951474
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Jan 1;89(1):251-5
pubmed: 1346068
Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016 Mar;23(3):191-9
pubmed: 26743120
Acta Oncol. 1991;30(4):503-7
pubmed: 1854508
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Sep;25(6):1425-1433
pubmed: 30924737
Pancreas. 2010 Aug;39(6):707-12
pubmed: 20664470
Histopathology. 2020 Jan;76(2):182-188
pubmed: 31433515
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 2;100(18):10258-62
pubmed: 12930900
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Jan 15;31(2):169-88
pubmed: 19845567
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):525-534
pubmed: 28238592
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Jan;30(1):33-43
pubmed: 26971842
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Oct;30(7):733-40
pubmed: 19573169
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993 Sep 15;195(2):844-52
pubmed: 8373420
Med Devices (Auckl). 2012;5:103-9
pubmed: 23293542
Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2017 Dec;18(4):393-410
pubmed: 29256148
J Clin Invest. 1994 Mar;93(3):1321-5
pubmed: 8132773
Biophys J. 2004 Apr;86(4):2484-501
pubmed: 15041685
Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Jul;28(7):836-46
pubmed: 11504080
Ann Oncol. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 7:vii124-30
pubmed: 22997445
Acta Oncol. 1993;32(2):225-9
pubmed: 7686765
Am J Gastroenterol. 1998 Sep;93(9):1468-71
pubmed: 9732927
Endocr Pract. 2016 Sep;22(9):1068-80
pubmed: 27214300
Am J Med. 1957 Dec;23(6):886-93
pubmed: 13487606
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2004 Apr;56(4):471-6
pubmed: 15099442
N Engl J Med. 1996 Jan 25;334(4):246-54
pubmed: 8532003
Lancet Oncol. 2008 Jan;9(1):61-72
pubmed: 18177818
N Engl J Med. 1993 Oct 7;329(15):1073-8
pubmed: 8371728
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 17;371(3):224-33
pubmed: 25014687
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 May;30(5):781-93
pubmed: 12707737
Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010 Oct 05;17(4):909-18
pubmed: 20702725
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Sep 15;733:138-46
pubmed: 7978861
Mol Endocrinol. 1992 Dec;6(12):2136-42
pubmed: 1337145
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994 Jan 28;198(2):605-12
pubmed: 7905265
Pancreas. 2011 Oct;40(7):987-94
pubmed: 21697761
Mol Pharmacol. 1994 Aug;46(2):291-8
pubmed: 8078491
Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011 Oct 17;18 Suppl 1:S1-16
pubmed: 22005112
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Oct 01;3(10):1335-1342
pubmed: 28448665
Endocrinology. 1994 Dec;135(6):2814-7
pubmed: 7988476
Pancreas. 2017 Jul;46(6):707-714
pubmed: 28609356
N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 11;315(11):663-6
pubmed: 2427948
Cancer. 2000 Feb 15;88(4):770-6
pubmed: 10679645
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4656-63
pubmed: 19704057
Gut. 1996 Aug;39(2):279-83
pubmed: 8977344

Auteurs

Mohammed B Allaw (MB)

Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Jeffrey M Switchenko (JM)

Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Lana Khalil (L)

Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Christina Wu (C)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Olatunji B Alese (OB)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Mehmet Akce (M)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Amber Draper (A)

Clinical Pharmacy, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Aaron T Jones (AT)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Bassel El-Rayes (B)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Walid Shaib (W)

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH