1. |
- Wolin, Edward M., et al.
(author)
-
Phase III study of pasireotide long-acting release in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid symptoms refractory to available somatostatin analogues
- 2015
-
In: Drug Design, Development and Therapy. - 1177-8881. ; 9, s. 5075-5086
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In a randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, we compared pasireotide long-acting release (pasireotide LAR) with octreotide long-acting repeatable (octreotide LAR) in managing carcinoid symptoms refractory to first-generation somatostatin analogues. Adults with carcinoid tumors of the digestive tract were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive pasireotide LAR (60 mg) or octreotide LAR (40 mg) every 28 days. Primary outcome was symptom control based on frequency of bowel movements and flushing episodes. Objective tumor response was a secondary outcome. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated in a post hoc analysis. Adverse events were recorded. At the time of a planned interim analysis, the data monitoring committee recommended halting the study because of a low predictive probability of showing superiority of pasireotide over octreotide for symptom control (n=43 pasireotide LAR, 20.9%; n=45 octreotide LAR, 26.7%; odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.97; P=0.53). Tumor control rate at month 6 was 62.7% with pasireotide and 46.2% with octreotide (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.89-4.32; P=0.09). Median (95% CI) PFS was 11.8 months (11.0 - not reached) with pasireotide versus 6.8 months (5.6 - not reached) with octreotide (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-0.98; P=0.045). The most frequent drug-related adverse events (pasireotide vs octreotide) included hyperglycemia (28.3% vs 5.3%), fatigue (11.3% vs 3.5%), and nausea (9.4% vs 0%). We conclude that, among patients with carcinoid symptoms refractory to available somatostatin analogues, similar proportions of patients receiving pasireotide LAR or octreotide LAR achieved symptom control at month 6. Pasireotide LAR showed a trend toward higher tumor control rate at month 6, although it was statistically not significant, and was associated with a longer PFS than octreotide LAR.
|
|
2. |
- Öberg, Kjell, et al.
(author)
-
Consensus on biomarkers for neuroendocrine tumour disease
- 2015
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 16:9, s. E435-E446
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Management of neuroendocrine neoplasia represents a clinical challenge because of its late presentation, lack of treatment options, and limitations in present imaging modalities and biomarkers to guide management. Monoanalyte biomarkers have poor sensitivity, specificity, and predictive ability. A National Cancer Institute summit, held in 2007, on neuroendocrine tumours noted biomarker limitations to be a crucial unmet need in the management of neuroendocrine tumours. A multinational consensus meeting of multidisciplinary experts in neuroendocrine tumours assessed the use of current biomarkers and defined the perquisites for novel biomarkers via the Delphi method. Consensus (at > 75%) was achieved for 88 (82%) of 107 assessment questions. The panel concluded that circulating multianalyte biomarkers provide the highest sensitivity and specifi city necessary for minimum disease detection and that this type of biomarker had sufficient information to predict treatment effectiveness and prognosis. The panel also concluded that no monoanalyte biomarker of neuroendocrine tumours has yet fulfilled these criteria and there is insufficient information to support the clinical use of miRNA or circulating tumour cells as useful prognostic markers for this disease. The panel considered that trials measuring multianalytes (eg, neuroendocrine gene transcripts) should also identify how such information can optimise the management of patients with neuroendocrine tumours.
|
|