Proposal of early CT morphological criteria for response of liver metastases to systemic treatments in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Alternatives to RECIST.
computed tomography
neuroendocrine tumors
response evaluation
systemic treatments
Journal
Journal of neuroendocrinology
ISSN: 1365-2826
Titre abrégé: J Neuroendocrinol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8913461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
revised:
10
04
2023
received:
17
01
2023
accepted:
28
04
2023
medline:
3
7
2023
pubmed:
22
6
2023
entrez:
22
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
RECIST 1.1 criteria are commonly used with computed tomography (CT) to evaluate the efficacy of systemic treatments in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and liver metastases (LMs), but their relevance is questioned in this setting. We aimed to explore alternative criteria using different numbers of measured LMs and thresholds of size and density variation. We retrospectively studied patients with advanced pancreatic or small intestine NETs with LMs, treated with systemic treatment in the first-and/or second-line, without early progression, in 14 European expert centers. We compared time to treatment failure (TTF) between responders and non-responders according to various criteria defined by 0%, 10%, 20% or 30% decrease in the sum of LM size, and/or by 10%, 15% or 20% decrease in LM density, measured on two, three or five LMs, on baseline (≤1 month before treatment initiation) and first revaluation (≤6 months) contrast-enhanced CT scans. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to adjust the association between response criteria and TTF on prognostic factors. We included 129 systemic treatments (long-acting somatostatin analogs 41.9%, chemotherapy 26.4%, targeted therapies 31.8%), administered as first-line (53.5%) or second-line therapies (46.5%) in 91 patients. A decrease ≥10% in the size of three LMs was the response criterion that best predicted prolonged TTF, with significance at multivariable analysis (HR 1.90; 95% CI: 1.06-3.40; p = .03). Conversely, response defined by RECIST 1.1 did not predict prolonged TTF (p = .91), and neither did criteria based on changes in LM density. A ≥10% decrease in size of three LMs could be a more clinically relevant criterion than the current 30% threshold utilized by RECIST 1.1 for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in patients with advanced NETs. Its implementation in clinical trials is mandatory for prospective validation. Criteria based on changes in LM density were not predictive of treatment efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at CNIL-CERB, Assistance publique hopitaux de Paris as "E-NETNET-L-E-CT" July 2018. No number was assigned. Approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of University Medical Center Groningen.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13311Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Neuroendocrinology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society for Neuroendocrinology.
Références
Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1335-1342. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0589
Borbath I, Garcia-Carbonero R, Bikmukhametov D, et al. The European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society registry, a tool to assess the prognosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:80-90. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.007
Pavel M, Öberg K, Falconi M, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:844-860. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.304
de Mestier L, Lepage C, Baudin E, et al. Digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN): French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, GTE, RENATEN, TENPATH, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, SFR). Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52:473-492. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2020.02.011
Rinke A, Müller H-H, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID study group. JCO. 2009;27:4656-4663. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.8510
Caplin ME, Pavel M, Cwikła JB, et al. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:224-233. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1316158
Yao JC, Fazio N, Singh S, et al. Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;387:968-977. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00817-X
Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T, et al. Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:514-523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009290
Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul J-L, et al. Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:501-513. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1003825
Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, et al. Phase 3 trial of 177Lu-Dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:125-135. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607427
Moertel CG, Lefkopoulo M, Lipsitz S, Hahn RG, Klaassen D. Streptozocin-doxorubicin, streptozocin-fluorouracil or chlorozotocin in the treatment of advanced islet-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:519-523. doi:10.1056/NEJM199202203260804
Kunz PL, Catalano PJ, Nimeiri H, et al. A randomized study of temozolomide or temozolomide and capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2211). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:abstract 4004. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.4004
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Sundin A, Arnold R, Baudin E, et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: radiological, nuclear medicine and hybrid imaging. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:212-244. doi:10.1159/000471879
de Mestier L, Dromain C, d'Assignies G, et al. Evaluating digestive neuroendocrine tumor progression and therapeutic responses in the era of targeted therapies: state of the art. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:R105-R120. doi:10.1530/ERC-13-0365
Merino-Casabiel X, Aller J, Arbizu J, et al. Consensus document on the progression and treatment response criteria in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20:1522-1528. doi:10.1007/s12094-018-1881-9
Thiis-Evensen E, Poole AC, Nguyen H-TT, Sponheim J. Achieving objective response in treatment of non-resectable neuroendocrine tumors does not predict longer time to progression compared to achieving stable disease. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:466. doi:10.1186/s12885-020-06963-6
Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753-1759. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049
Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52-60. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1247132
WHO Classification of Tumours. Digestive System Tumours. Vol. 1. 5th ed. IARC; 2019.
Perren A, Couvelard A, Scoazec J-Y, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: pathology: diagnosis and prognostic stratification. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105:196-200. doi:10.1159/000457956
Zappa M, Hentic O, Vullierme M-P, et al. Is visual radiological evaluation of liver tumour burden in patients with neuroendocrine tumours reproducible? Endocr Connect. 2017;6:33-38. doi:10.1530/EC-16-0092
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
Capdevila J, Grande E, García-Carbonero R, et al. Position statement on the diagnosis, treatment, and response evaluation to systemic therapies of advanced neuroendocrine tumors, with a special focus on radioligand therapy. Oncologist. 2022;27:e328-e339. doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyab041
Lamarca A, Barriuso J, Kulke M, et al. Determination of an optimal response cut-off able to predict progression-free survival in patients with well-differentiated advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours treated with sunitinib: an alternative to the current RECIST-defined response. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:181-188. doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.402
Lamarca A, Ronot M, Moalla S, et al. Tumor growth rate as a validated early radiological biomarker able to reflect treatment-induced changes in neuroendocrine tumors: the GREPONET-2 study. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:6692-6699. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0963
Faivre S, Ronot M, Dreyer C, et al. Imaging response in neuroendocrine tumors treated with targeted therapies: the experience of sunitinib. Target Oncol. 2012;7:127-133. doi:10.1007/s11523-012-0216-y
Luo Y, Chen J, Huang K, et al. Early evaluation of sunitinib for the treatment of advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms via CT imaging: RECIST 1.1 or Choi criteria? BMC Cancer. 2017;17:154. doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3150-7
Solis-Hernandez MP, Fernandez del Valle A, Carmona-Bayonas A, et al. Evaluating radiological response in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours treated with sunitinib: comparison of Choi versus RECIST criteria (CRIPNET_ GETNE1504 study). Br J Cancer. 2019;121:537-544. doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0558-7
Moalla S, Arfi Rouche J, Foulon S, et al. Are we reproducible in measurement of NET liver metastasis? Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49:1121-1127. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2017.05.015