scholarly journals Sunitinib-Induced Hypothyroidism and Survival in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 794-800
Author(s):  
Annie Mathew ◽  
Dagmar Führer ◽  
Harald Lahner
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor ◽  
Thyroid Stimulating Hormone ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Tumor Patients ◽  
Free Survival

AbstractSunitinib has been approved for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, renal-cell carcinoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. The elevation of thyroid-stimulating hormone serum levels is a common side effect. Studies suggest a correlation between sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism and treatment outcome in patients with renal-cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. This study assessed whether sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism is a predictive marker of the objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients. Twenty-nine patients treated with sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors were included. The incidence of sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism was 33%. The median progression-free survival of patients who developed hypothyroidism was 16 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2–25.8 months) as compared with six months among euthyroid patients (95% confidence interval: 0.1–12.2 months) (p=0.02). The median overall survival was 77 months (95% confidence interval: 31.4–122.6 months) in hypothyroid patients but 12 months (95% confidence interval: 5.9–18.1 months) in subjects with euthyroidism (p=0.001). The median overall survival from the time of initial diagnosis ranged from 247 months in patients with hypothyroidism to 65 months in euthyroid subjects (p=0.015). Elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels are a prognostic biomarker of improved outcomes of sunitinib therapy in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between enucleation and regular pancreatectomy in patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective multicenter and propensity score-matched study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Hengjun Gao ◽  
Jun Lu ◽  
Zheyu Niu ◽  
Huaqiang Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Disease Free

Abstract Objective There are limited data from retrospective studies on whether therapeutic outcomes after regular pancreatectomy are superior to those after enucleation in patients with small, peripheral and well-differentiated non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of regular pancreatectomy and enucleation in patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Methods Between January 2007 and July 2020, 227 patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors who underwent either enucleation (n = 89) or regular pancreatectomy (n = 138) were included. Perioperative complications, disease-free survival, and overall survival probabilities were compared. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline differences between the two groups. Results The median follow-up period was 60.76 months in the enucleation group and 43.29 months in the regular pancreatectomy group. In total, 34 paired patients were identified after propensity score matching. The average operative duration in the enucleation group was significantly shorter than that in the regular pancreatectomy group (147.94 ± 42.39 min versus 217.94 ± 74.60 min, P < 0.001), and the estimated blood loss was also significantly lesser (P < 0.001). The matched patients who underwent enucleation displayed a similar overall incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.765), and a comparable length of hospital stay (11.12 ± 3.90 days versus 9.94 ± 2.62 days, P = 0.084) compared with those who underwent regular pancreatectomy. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival and overall survival after propensity score matching. Conclusion Enucleation in patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors was associated with shorter operative time, lesser intraoperative bleeding, similar overall morbidity of postoperative complications, and comparable 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival when compared with regular pancreatectomy.

scholarly journals FAS and Subsequent Therapies in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane E. Rogers ◽  
Michael Lam ◽  
Daniel M. Halperin ◽  
Cecile G. Dagohoy ◽  
James C. Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Well Differentiated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Of Therapy

We evaluated outcomes of treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), doxorubicin, and streptozocin (FAS) in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) and its impact on subsequent therapy (everolimus or temozolomide). Advanced PanNET patients treated at our center from 1992 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients received bolus 5-FU (400 mg/m2), streptozocin (400 mg/m2) (both IV, days 1-5) and doxorubicin (40 mg/m2 IV, day 1) every 28 days. Overall response rate (ORR) was assessed using RECIST version 1.1. Of 243 eligible patients, 220 were evaluable for ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Most (90%) had metastatic, nonfunctional PanNETs; 14% had prior therapy. ORR to FAS was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36-48%). Median follow-up was 61 months. Median PFS was 20 (95% CI: 15-23) months; median overall survival (OS) was 63 (95% CI: 60-71) months. Cox regression analyses suggested improvement with first-line vs subsequent lines of FAS therapy. Main adverse events ≥ grade 3 were neutropenia (10%) and nausea/vomiting (5.5%). Dose reductions were required in 32% of patients. Post-FAS everolimus (n=108; 68% second line) had a median PFS of 10 (95% CI: 8-14) months. Post-FAS temozolomide (n=60; 53% > fourth line) had an ORR of 13% and median PFS of 5.2 (95% CI: 4-12) months. In this largest reported cohort of PanNETs treated with chemotherapy, FAS demonstrated activity without significant safety concerns. FAS did not appear to affect subsequent PFS with everolimus; this sequence is being evaluated prospectively. Responses were noted with subsequent temozolomide-based regimens although PFS was possibly limited by line of therapy.

Use of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: A multicenter real-world experience

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110386
Author(s):  
Angela Chen ◽  
Vincent H Ha ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Carole R Chambers ◽  
Michael B Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factors ◽  
Median Progression Free Survival ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Introduction The metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma clinical trial (MPACT) trial established gemcitabine (gem) and nab-paclitaxel (nab) as a standard treatment for pancreatic cancer utilizing granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to manage neutropenia. This was a challenge for jurisdictions that do not use granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in palliative settings. We developed dosage guidelines to dose modify gem and nab without granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. We undertook a retrospective review to determine the efficacy and safety of these dose adjustment guidelines in the real world. Methods A multi-centered, retrospective chart review was performed on pancreatic patients between December 1, 2014, and August 21, 2018. Provincial electronic medical health records were reviewed. Using Log-rank statistics we determined the patient's progression-free survival and overall survival. Results Of 248 patients, 209 met patient selection criteria. Patients were excluded if they were lost to follow-up, on gem alone prior to nab/gem combination therapy or did not receive nab or gem. Patients who received nab/gem as first-line therapy had a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.1–7.4), and median overall survival of 11.1 months (95% CI, 9.5–12.8). Those who received gem/nab in the second line had a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8–6.5), and median overall survival of 19.3 months (95% CI, 12.6–26.0). Conclusions The patient’s progression-free survival and overall survival taking nab/gem using our dose modification algorithm were equivalent or superior to the MPACT trial's progression-free survival and overall survival. Gem/nab can be given by our dose modification scheme without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Irosustat Versus Megestrol Acetate in Advanced Endometrial Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Pautier ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Florence Joly ◽  
Bohuslav Melichar ◽  
Elzbieta Kutarska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

ObjectiveAdvanced/metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis. Malignant endometrial tissue has high steroid sulphatase (STS) activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate STS as a therapeutic target in patients with endometrial cancer.MethodsThis was a phase 2, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized (1:1), 2-arm study of the STS inhibitor oral irosustat 40 mg/d versus oral megestrol acetate 160 mg/d in women with advanced/metastatic or recurrent estrogen receptor–positive endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the proportion of patients without progression or death 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and safety.ResultsSeventy-one patients were treated (36 with irosustat, 35 with megestrol acetate). The study was prematurely stopped after futility analysis. Overall, 36.1% and 54.1% of patients receiving irosustat or megestrol acetate had not progressed or died at 6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between irosustat and megestrol acetate in response and overall survival rates. Irosustat patients had a median progression-free survival of 16 weeks (90% confidence interval, 9.0–31.4) versus 40 weeks (90% confidence interval, 16.3–64.0) in megestrol acetate patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20 (55.6%) and 13 (37.1%) patients receiving irosustat or megestrol, respectively. Most adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2.ConclusionsAlthough irosustat monotherapy did not attain a level of activity sufficient for further development in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, this study confirms the activity of hormonal treatment (megestrol acetate) for this indication.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for patients treated with abiraterone

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. FSO436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecília M Alvim ◽  
André Mansinho ◽  
Rita S Paiva ◽  
Raquel Brás ◽  
Patrícia M Semedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Abiraterone Acetate ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Factors

Aim: To evaluate prostate-specific antigen response (PSAr) defined as a ≥50% decrease in PSA concentration from the pretreatment value, as a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with abiraterone acetate (AA). Methods: Retrospective evaluation of patients with mCRPC treated with AA. Results: 124 patients were identified. Median overall survival and progression-free survival for patients achieving PSAr versus patients without PSAr were 29.3 versus 9.7 months and 17.0 versus 5.2 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that PSAr correlated with better overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.10−0.38; p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.14−0.41; p < 0.001). Conclusion: PSAr can be utilized as prognostic and predictive factors in mCRPC patients treated with AA.

Does endometriosis have an effect on the survival of women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer?

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 185-193
Author(s):  
Engin Celik ◽  
Hale Goksever Celik ◽  
Hamdullah Sozen ◽  
Semen Onder ◽  
Merve Baktiroglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pathological Characteristics

Purpose: Synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer is defined as the concurrent presence of ovarian cancer with endometrial cancer. We aimed to evaluate whether there is an effect of endometriosis on progression-free survival and overall survival of women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer. We also compared these findings with the patients having endometrial-only tumors and ovarian-only tumors. Methods: The patients who underwent surgery for endometrioid or clear-cell endometrial-only tumors and/or ovarian-only tumors and synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer between 2005 and 2016 were included in this cohort study. The effect of the presence of endometriosis on progression-free survival and overall survival in these women who met the criteria was determined using statistical methods. Women were also compared regarding their demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics. Results: A total of 176 patients were included in this study. All histology types of tumors located in endometrium or ovary were endometrioid or clear-cell cancer. Endometriosis was present in 62 patients (35.2%), whereas adenomyosis was present in 44 patients (25%). Endometriosis was diagnosed more frequently in women with ovarian-only tumors and synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer than those with endometrial-only tumors (59.2% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001 and 45.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001, respectively). The patients with endometriosis showed no significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.70; 95% confidence interval = 0.48–6.03; p = 0.408 and hazard ratio = 1.67; 95% confidence interval = 0.30–9.44; p = 0.562, respectively). The presence of endometriosis was a stronger predictor for progression-free survival and overall survival comparing with the presence of adenomyosis. Conclusion: The women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer should be informed that endometriosis has no detrimental effect on progression-free survival and overall survival.

Second Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) as Salvage Therapy in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1217-1217
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Mikhael ◽  
Sahar Zadeh ◽  
A. Keith Stewart ◽  
Christine Chen ◽  
Suzanne Trudel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Autologous Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Free Interval ◽  
Ortho Biotech

Abstract Abstract 1217 Poster Board I-239 Background Single autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is considered the standard of care after induction therapy for younger multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts). However, it is not curative and virtually all patients will ultimately relapse. As more options are available to treat relapsed disease, the role of a second ASCT as salvage therapy is unclear. Method Retrospective review of all MM pts who received a 2nd ASCT as salvage therapy at Princess Margaret Hospital. Results Between February 1997 and July 2009, 79 MM pts received a second ASCT for relapsed MM at our institution. Median age was 60 yrs (range 39-72) at second transplant. 48 pts (61%) were male. Immunoglobulin subtype included IgG (42), IgA (21), light chain (11), nonsecretory (3), IgM(1) and IgD (1). Transplant conditioning regimen for first transplant was high dose melphalan (MEL) 140-200 mg/m2 in 67, busulphan and cyclophosphamide in 1, and combinations of MEL with etoposide (E) or TBI in the rest. 2nd ASCT conditioning consisted of MEL alone in 76, the remaining 3 had MEL with either TBI or E. The median time to relapse after the first transplant was 2.72 years (0.81-8.26), with a median interval between transplants of 3.61 years (1.63-9.59). Response to first transplant in 78 evaluable patients was 13 CR/nCR (17%), 56 PR/VGPR (72%), 9 MR/SD (12%). Nineteen pts received maintenance therapy between transplants. Two transplant-related deaths occurred following 2nd ASCT. In 73 evaluable patients, response to second transplant was 11 CR/nCR (15%), 57 PR (78%), 6 MR/SD (8%). After 2nd ASCT, with median follow up 5.92 years (71 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.5 months and median overall survival (OS) was 4.4 years. Long term progression-free status based on the progression-free interval after 1st ASCT is summarized Table 1. PFS based on progression free interval after 1st ASCT is outlined in Figure 1. Conclusions 2nd ASCT is a feasible and safe salvage therapy in relapsed MM patients. It is effective in providing a median progression free survival of 18.5 months and median overall survival of 4.4 years (52.8 months) after 2nd ASCT. This is comparable if not better than modern salvage chemotherapies. The longer the disease free interval after 1st ASCT the more effective 2nd ASCT is at extending both progression free survival and overall survival. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider a 2nd ASCT if the time to progression is greater than 2 years after first ASCT. Disclosures Chen: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document