Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for
- Author: Jean-Yves Scoazec x
- Refine by access: All content x
Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Search for other papers by Mairéad G McNamara in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Université Paris Sud, Faculté de Médecine de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
Search for other papers by Jean-Yves Scoazec in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas Walter in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Patients with extrapulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP-PD-NECs) have a poor prognosis. Surgery is offered for those with localised disease, but the majority of patients present with advanced disease. Treatment strategies adopted are analogous to that of high grade NECs of the lung, with platinum/etoposide-based regimens advocated in the first-line setting for advanced disease. There is no standard second-line therapy. Research into their molecular and immune pathways may pave the way for novel drug discovery. The molecular drivers of NEC are best identified in small cell lung carcinoma, which present with near universal genomic alterations in TP53 and RB1. The genetics of EP-PD-NEC remain poorly understood; TP53, KRAS, PIK3CA/PTEN and BRAF mutations have been identified, with alterations in the BRCA pathway reported additionally in small cell NEC of the cervix and absence of argininosuccinate synthetase 1 expression in NEC of the urinary bladder. The use of cell lines and patient-derived xenografts (PDX) to predict response to treatment in NEC and the emergence of alternative biomarkers, such as circulating tumour cells and cell-free DNA, will also be explored. Despite limited published data on the immune microenvironment of EP-NEC, there are a number of clinical trials investigating the use of immune-targeted agents in this disease category, with conflicting emerging data from studies thus far. This review will summarise the treatment and available molecular and immune data in this under researched diagnosis and may stimulate the direction of future exploratory studies.
Search for other papers by Margaux Foulfoin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
University of Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
Search for other papers by Emmanuelle Graillot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service de chirurgie, Lyon, France
Search for other papers by Mustapha Adham in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service de radiologie, Lyon, France
Search for other papers by Pascal Rousset in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Julien Forestier in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service Central d’Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Lyon, France
Search for other papers by Valérie Hervieu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philip Robinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jean-Yves Scoazec in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Catherine Lombard-Bohas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
University of Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
Search for other papers by Thomas Walter in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The choice of first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (mP-NET) is mainly based on prognostic factors. ENETS-2016 guidelines stratified treatment according to 3 groups: Group 1, patients in whom all lesions could be removed; Group 2, patients with Ki67 <10%, low tumor burden, no symptoms and stable disease, for whom a watch-and-wait strategy or somatostatin analogs are proposed; Group 3, symptomatic patients or with Ki67 >10% or significant tumor burden or progressive disease, for whom a systemic chemotherapy is proposed. This retrospective study aimed to determine patient distribution, characteristics and outcome among these 3 groups. Patients with mP-NET diagnosis from 2004 to 2016 were categorized into the three groups. Prognosis was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. All treatments were recorded, and consistency with ENETS guidelines was explored. 104 patients were analyzed: 64% synchronous mP-NET, 80% grade 2 tumors and median overall survival (OS) of 104 (95% CI: 65–143) months. There were 15 patients in ENETS Group 1, 16 in Group 2 and 73 in Group 3. Median OS was not reached in Groups 1 and 2 and was 64 months (35–93) in Group 3. High liver tumor volume, high-grade tumor and progressive disease were associated with worse OS in multivariate analysis. The first-line treatment was in accordance with guidelines in 82%. 77% percent of deceased patients received less than 4 lines of treatment. Most patients are in Group 3 and do not receive all available treatments. Thus, trials are warranted to improve first-line chemotherapy. Alternative treatments may be considered for less aggressive disease.
Search for other papers by Louis de Mestier in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Clarisse Dromain in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gaspard d'Assignies in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jean-Yves Scoazec in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nathalie Lassau in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rachida Lebtahi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hedia Brixi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emmanuel Mitry in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rosine Guimbaud in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Frédéric Courbon in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michèle d'Herbomez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guillaume Cadiot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous rare tumors. They are often slow-growing and patients can have very long survival, even at the metastatic stage. The evaluation of tumor progression and therapeutic responses is currently based on Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1 (RECIST) criteria. As for other malignancies, RECIST criteria are being reexamined for NETs in the era of targeted therapies because tumor response to targeted therapies is rarely associated with shrinkage, as opposed to prolonged progression-free survival. Therefore, size-based criteria no longer seem to be suitable to the assessment of NET progression and therapeutic responses, especially considering targeted therapies. New imaging criteria, combining morphological and functional techniques, have proven relevant for other malignancies treated with targeted therapies. To date, such studies have rarely been conducted on NETs. Moreover, optimizing the management of NET patients also requires considering clinical, biological, and pathological aspects of tumor evolution. Our objectives herein were to comprehensively review current knowledge on the assessment of tumor progression and early prediction of therapeutic responses and to broaden the outlook on well-differentiated NETs, in the era of targeted therapies.
Search for other papers by Fritz-Line Vélayoudom-Céphise in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Duvillard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lydia Foucan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Julien Hadoux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cecile N Chougnet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sophie Leboulleux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David Malka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Pathology, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Departments of Gastroenterology, Thoracic Oncology, Digestive Surgery, Medical Imaging, Faculté de Médecine Paris Sud, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France
Search for other papers by Joël Guigay in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Diane Goere in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thierry Debaere in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Caroline Caramella in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Martin Schlumberger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Pathology, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Departments of Gastroenterology, Thoracic Oncology, Digestive Surgery, Medical Imaging, Faculté de Médecine Paris Sud, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France
Search for other papers by David Planchard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dominique Elias in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Pathology, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Departments of Gastroenterology, Thoracic Oncology, Digestive Surgery, Medical Imaging, Faculté de Médecine Paris Sud, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France
Search for other papers by Michel Ducreux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jean-Yves Scoazec in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eric Baudin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The new WHO classification of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NET) implies that G3 neoplasms with mitotic index >20 and/or Ki67 index >20% are neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC), described as poorly differentiated, small or large cell types, by analogy with lung NEC. To characterize the subgroup of non-small-cell-type GEP and thoracic NET with mitotic index >20 and/or Ki67 >20% according to their pathological features, response to cisplatin and overall survival (OS). We reviewed pathological and clinical presentation of G3 non-small-cell-type NET referred to our institution for 5 years. Data from 166 patients with metastatic thoracic and GEP-NET were collected. Twenty-eight patients (17%) fulfill the inclusion criteria. Tumors were classified as well-differentiated NET (G3-WDNET) in 42.8% of cases and poorly differentiated, large-cell NEC (G3-LCNEC) in 57.2% of cases. Plasma chromogranin A or neuron-specific enolase were elevated in 42 and 25% respectively of G3-WDNET and 31 and 50% of G3-LCNEC. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy was positive in 88 and 50% of G3-WDNET or G3-LCNEC respectively. Complete or partial response to cisplatin was observed in 31% of cases, all classified as G3-LCNEC. The median OS was 41 months for G3-WDNET but 17 months for G3-LCNEC (P=0.34). Short survival was observed in 25% of G3-WDNET but 62.5% of G3-LCNEC patients (P=0.049). G3 ENETS GEP and thoracic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) could constitute a heterogeneous subgroup of NEN as regards diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. If confirmed, future classifications may consider splitting them into two groups according to their morphological differentiation.
Search for other papers by Julien Hadoux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas Walter in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christina Kanaan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ségolène Hescot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vincent Hautefeuille in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marine Perrier in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Laboratoire GReD, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Search for other papers by Igor Tauveron in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sandrine Laboureau in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christine Do Cao in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Caroline Petorin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Odile Blanchet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matthieu Faron in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emmanuelle Leteurtre in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marie-Christine Rousselet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Juliette Joubert Zakeyh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Aude Marchal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Denis Chatelain in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Clément Beaulaton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Valérie Hervieu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Catherine Lombard-Bohas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
Search for other papers by Michel Ducreux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
Search for other papers by Jean-Yves Scoazec in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eric Baudin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by the Groupe d’Etude des Tumeurs Endocrines (GTE) in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by the ENDOCAN-RENATEN network in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) are aggressive malignant diseases. Etoposide-based rechallenge (EBR) and the prognostic role of RB transcriptional corepressor 1 (RB1) status in second-line chemotherapy (2L) have not been studied. The objectives of this study were to report the results of 2L including EBR as well as prognostic factors in a national retrospective multicentre study. NEC patients treated with 2L and further, with tissue samples available, were included. RB1 status and morphological classification were reviewed centrally. Among the 121 NEC patients (40% female, median age 61 years) included, there were 73 small-cell NEC (60%), 34 large-cell NEC (28%) and 14 NEC (not otherwise specified, 12%). Primary sites were lung (39%), gastroenteropancreatic (36%), other (13%) and unknown (12%). Median Ki-67 index was 80%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) under 2L were 2.1 and 6.2 months, respectively. No difference was observed between patients who received an ‘adenocarcinoma-like’ or a ‘neuroendocrine-like’ 2L or according to the RB1 status. Thoracic NEC primary was the only adverse prognostic factor for OS. EBR, administered to 31 patients, resulted in a 62% disease control rate with a median PFS and OS of 3.2 and 11.7 months, respectively. In the 94 patients with a relapse-free interval of ≥3 months after first-line platinum–etoposide chemotherapy, the median OS was 12 months in patients who received EBR as compared to 5.9 months in patients who did not (P = 0.043). EBR could be the best 2L option for patient with initial response to first-line platinum–etoposide lasting at least 3 months. RB1 status does not provide prognostic information in this setting.