Although combination therapy is not recommended in patients with gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), this strategy is widely used in clinical practice. This network meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluates targeted therapies and somatostatin analogues in GEP advanced NETs, either alone or in combination, comparing the efficacy of different single or combined treatment strategies in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Interventions were grouped as analogues, everolimus, everolimus plus SSAs, sunitinib and placebo. In a secondary analysis, we also assessed the efficacy of individual specific pharmacological treatments versus placebo or each other. From 83 studies identified, 8 randomized controlled trials were selected, with a total of 1849 patients with either functioning or non-functioning NETs. The analysis confirmed the superiority of all treatments over placebo (HR ranging from 0.34, 95% CI: 0.24–0.37 with the combination of everolimus plus SSAs to 0.42, 0.31–0.57 with the analogues; moderate quality of evidence). On ranking analysis, the combination of everolimus plus SSA (P score=0.86) and then everolimus alone (P score=0.65) ranked highest in increasing PFS. On comparative evaluation of different interventions, pasireotide (P score=0.96) and everolimus+octreotide (P score=0.82) ranked as the best pharmacological treatment options. Our findings support the use of combination therapy in the treatment of functioning and non-functioning GEP NETs. The role of pasireotide should be explored in selected subgroups of patients. Last, the combination of everolimus and octreotide appears promising and should be more widely considered in clinical practice.
Sara Pusceddu, Antonio Facciorusso, Luca Giacomelli, Natalie Prinzi, Francesca Corti, Monica Niger, Massimo Milione, Jorgelina Coppa, Tommaso Cascella, Iolanda Pulice, Lavinia Biamonte, Simonetta Papa, Maria Di Bartolomeo, Aashni Shah, Rodolfo Sacco, and Filipppo de Braud
Sara Pusceddu, Francesco Barretta, Annalisa Trama, Laura Botta, Massimo Milione, Roberto Buzzoni, Filippo De Braud, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Ugo Pastorino, Ettore Seregni, Luigi Mariani, Gemma Gatta, Maria Di Bartolomeo, Daniela Femia, Natalie Prinzi, Jorgelina Coppa, Francesco Panzuto, Lorenzo Antonuzzo, Emilio Bajetta, Maria Pia Brizzi, Davide Campana, Laura Catena, Harry Comber, Fiona Dwane, Nicola Fazio, Antongiulio Faggiano, Dario Giuffrida, Kris Henau, Toni Ibrahim, Riccardo Marconcini, Sara Massironi, Maja Primic Žakelj, Francesca Spada, Salvatore Tafuto, Elizabeth Van Eycken, Jan Maaten Van der Zwan, Tina Žagar, Luca Giacomelli, Rosalba Miceli, and NEPscore Working Group
No validated prognostic tool is available for predicting overall survival (OS) of patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNETs). This study, conducted in three independent cohorts of patients from five different European countries, aimed to develop and validate a classification prognostic score for OS in patients with stage IV WDNETs. We retrospectively collected data on 1387 patients: (i) patients treated at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori (Milan, Italy; n = 515); (ii) European cohort of rare NET patients included in the European RARECAREnet database (n = 457); (iii) Italian multicentric cohort of pancreatic NET (pNETs) patients treated at 24 Italian institutions (n = 415). The score was developed using data from patients included in cohort (i) (training set); external validation was performed by applying the score to the data of the two independent cohorts (ii) and (iii) evaluating both calibration and discriminative ability (Harrell C statistic). We used data on age, primary tumor site, metastasis (synchronous vs metachronous), Ki-67, functional status and primary surgery to build the score, which was developed for classifying patients into three groups with differential 10-year OS: (I) favorable risk group: 10-year OS ≥70%; (II) intermediate risk group: 30% ≤ 10-year OS < 70%; (III) poor risk group: 10-year OS <30%. The Harrell C statistic was 0.661 in the training set, and 0.626 and 0.601 in the RARECAREnet and Italian multicentric validation sets, respectively. In conclusion, based on the analysis of three ‘field-practice’ cohorts collected in different settings, we defined and validated a prognostic score to classify patients into three groups with different long-term prognoses.