Combined use of 177Lu-DOTATATE and metronomic capecitabine (Lu-X) in FDG-positive gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Purpose FDG-positive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have a poorer prognosis and exhibit shorter response duration to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). The aim of this prospective phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT with 177 Lu-DOTATATE associated with metronomi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging Vol. 48; no. 10; pp. 3260 - 3267
Main Authors Nicolini, Silvia, Bodei, Lisa, Bongiovanni, Alberto, Sansovini, Maddalena, Grassi, Ilaria, Ibrahim, Toni, Monti, Manuela, Caroli, Paola, Sarnelli, Anna, Diano, Danila, Di Iorio, Valentina, Grana, Chiara Maria, Cittanti, Corrado, Pieri, Federica, Severi, Stefano, Paganelli, Giovanni
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.09.2021
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose FDG-positive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have a poorer prognosis and exhibit shorter response duration to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). The aim of this prospective phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT with 177 Lu-DOTATATE associated with metronomic capecitabine as a radiosensitizer agent in patients with advanced progressive FDG-positive gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) NETs. Patients and methods Patients with advanced somatostatin receptor- and FDG-positive G1-G3 GEP-NETs (Ki67 < 55%) were treated with a cumulative activity of 27.5 GBq of 177 Lu-DOTATATE divided in five cycles of 5.5 GBq each every 8 weeks. Capecitabine (1000–1500 mg daily) was administered orally in the inter-cycle period between 177 Lu-DOTATATE treatments. Prior to commencing capecitabine, all patients were triaged with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) test. Only DPD-proficient individuals were enrolled. The primary objectives were disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Secondary aims included progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment response was assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). Toxicity was assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Results From August 2015 to December 2016, 37 subjects were consecutively enrolled. A total of 25 (68%) were affected by pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs), and 12 (32%) had gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs). By grading (WHO 2010 classification), 12 patients (32%) had G1 (Ki67 ≤ 2%), 22 (59%) had G2 (3% < Ki67 ≤ 20%), and 3 patients (9%) had G3 (Ki67 > 20%) NETs. Grade 3 (G3) or 4 (G4) hematological toxicity occurred in 16.2% of patients. Other G3-G4 adverse events were diarrhea in 5.4% of cases and asthenia in 5.4%. No renal toxicity was observed for the duration of follow-up. In 37 patients, 33 were evaluable for response. Objective responses included partial response (PR) in 10 patients (30%) and stable disease (SD) in 18 patients (55%), with a DCR of 85%. The median follow-up was 38 months (range 4.6–51.1 months). The median PFS was 31.4 months (17.6–45.4), and mOS was not reached. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the combination of PRRT with 177 Lu-DOTATATE and metronomic capecitabine is active and well tolerated in patients with aggressive FDG-positive G1-G3 GEP-NETs. These data constitute the basis for a randomized study of PPRT alone vs. PRRT plus metronomic capecitabine.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
Study concept and design: Giovanni Paganelli, Lisa Bodei; Provision of study materials or patients: Silvia Nicolini, Alberto Bongiovanni, Maddalena Sansovini, Stefano Severi, Ilaria Grassi, Toni Ibrahim, Chiara Maria Grana, Valentina Di Iorio, Corrado Cittanti; Diagnostic and therapeutic imaging: Paola Caroli, Danila Diano; Quality control and Gamma Camera calibration: Anna Sarnelli; Data management: Manuela Monti; Analysis and interpretation of data: Giovanni Paganelli, Silvia Nicolini; Drafting of the manuscript: Silvia Nicolini, Lisa Bodei, Giovanni Paganelli; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Giovanni Paganelli, Lisa Bodei. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author Contributions
These authors contributed equally
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-021-05236-z