Second-line Therapy for Patients With Progressive Poorly Differentiated Extra-pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

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.

Download Full-text

Second-line therapy for patients with progressive poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma

http://isrctn.com/ ◽

10.1186/isrctn10996604 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Jayne Swain

Keyword(s):

Neuroendocrine Carcinoma ◽

Second Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Poorly Differentiated

Download Full-text

NET-02 trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised, parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034527 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e034527 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Zoe Craig ◽

Jayne Swain ◽

Emma Batman ◽

Jonathan Wadsley ◽

Nicholas Reed ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Folinic Acid ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Second Line ◽

Open Label ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Open Label Phase ◽

Poorly Differentiated ◽

Liposomal Irinotecan

IntroductionPoorly differentiated (PD), extrapulmonary (EP), neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are rare but aggressive neuroendocrine neoplasms. First-line treatment for advanced disease is an etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy combination. There is no established second-line treatment for patients with PD-EP-NEC, and this is an area of unmet need.Methods and analysisNET-02 is a UK, multicentre, randomised (1:1), parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI)/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive PD-EP-NEC. One hundred and two eligible participants will be randomised to receive either nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid or docetaxel. The primary objective is to determine the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The secondary objectives of this study are to determine PFS, overall survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and whether neuron-specific enolase is predictive of treatment response. If either treatment is found to have a 6-month PFS rate of at least 25%, that treatment will be considered for a phase III trial. If both treatments meet this target, prespecified selection criteria will be applied to establish which treatment to take forward.Ethics and disseminationThis study has ethical approval from the Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (reference no. 18/NW/0031) and clinical trial authorisation from the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and uploaded to the European Union Clinical Trials Register.Trial registration numbersISRCTN10996604,NCT03837977, EudraCT Number: 2017-002453-11

Download Full-text