Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

215P - Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy versus capecitabine/temozolomide for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Date

27 Jun 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Rushabh Gujarathi

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_1): S94-S105. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1479

Authors

R. Gujarathi, J. Tobias, S.A. Azar, X. Keutgen, C. Liao

Author affiliations

  • The University of Chicago, Chicago/US

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 215P

Background

Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) and Capecitabine/Temozolomide (CAPTEM) are cornerstones of systemic therapy for metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). The best sequence of systemic therapies (STs) in PNETs is poorly understood. Herein we compare the efficacy of PRRT vs. CAPTEM as 2nd line and beyond STs.

Methods

Clinicopathologic, radiographic, and genomic data were captured for metastatic PNET patients seen in our multi-disciplinary NET clinic between 2013 to 2023. The primary outcome was progression free survival (PFS) with PRRT/CAPTEM after progression on at least one prior line of ST. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and overall survival (OS). Outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan Meier estimations and Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

59 patients were included and the median follow-up time was 31.7 months (m). There was no difference in PFS between the PRRT (n = 29) and CAPTEM (n = 30) groups (21.9 m vs. 20 m; HR, 0.99; p = 0.97). On subgroup analysis, PRRT had longer PFS in cases without extrahepatic metastases (n = 20; 26.5 m vs. 17.7 m; HR, 0.31; p = 0.03) and cases with mutations in the MEN1, DAXX, and/or ATRX genes (n = 19; 28.4 m vs. 18.7 m; HR, 0.22; p = 0.03). CAPTEM had longer PFS in patients with grade 3 disease (n = 13; 16.3 m vs. 7.8 m; HR, 0.13; p = 0.02) and trended towards longer PFS in cases with bone metastases (n = 20; 28.6 m vs. 17.9 m; HR, 0.35; p = 0.09). ORR did not vary significantly (PRRT, 8/23, 34.78%; vs. CAPTEM, 9/22, 40.91%; p = 0.67). CAPTEM responders showed shorter TTR (6.03 m vs. 11.15 m; log-rank p = 0.03). In patients who received both (PRRT first = 11; CAPTEM first = 12), OS did not vary based on the sequence (48.6 m vs. 50 m; HR, 1.20; p = 0.75).

Conclusions

PFS, ORR, and OS are similar when using PRRT vs. CAPTEM as 2nd line and beyond therapy for patients with metastatic PNETs. However, patients with MEN1, DAXX, and/or ATRX mutations or without extrahepatic metastases might further benefit from PRRT and patients with grade 3 disease from CAPTEM. Candidates for surgical debulking or those with tumor-induced symptoms may benefit from initial treatment with CAPTEM due to shorter TTR.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

C. Liao: Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca, Incyte; Other, Personal, Other, Consultant: Genentech, Histosonics, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, QED, Transthera, Boston Scientific. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.