Current practice in approaching controversial diagnostic and therapeutic topics in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm management : Belgian multidisciplinary expert discussion based on a modified Delphi method

Background and study aims: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are relatively rare, with marked clinical and biological heterogeneity. Consequently, many controversial areas remain in diagnosis and optimal treatment stratification for NEN patients. We wanted to describe current clinical practice regarding controversial NEN topics and stimulate critical thinking and mutual learning among a Belgian multidisciplinary expert panel Patients and methods: A 3-round, Delphi method based project, coordinated by a steering committee (SC), was applied to a predefined multidisciplinary NEN expert panel studying the following controversial topics : factors guiding therapeutic decision making, the use of somatostatin analogues (SSA) in adjuvant setting, the interference between non-radioactive and radioactive SSAs, challenging small intestine neuroendocrine tumor (NET) cases, the approach of the carcinoid syndrome, the role of chemotherapy in well differentiated NET, the relevance of NET G3 and neuroendocrine carcinoma subclassification and the role of imaging techniques in NEN management. Results: A high level of consensus exists regarding the necessary diagnostic work-up, use of imaging techniques and interference between non-radioactive and radioactive SSAs. However, the prognostic impact of tumor functionality might be overrated and adequate diarrhea differential diagnostic work-up in these patients is underused. Significant differences are seen between individual experts and centers regarding treatment preferences both on the treatment modality level, as well as the choice of specific drugs (e.g. chemotherapy regimen). Conclusions: A Delphi-like multi-round expert discussion proves useful to boost critical thinking and discussion among experts of different background, as well as to describe current clinical practice and stimulate mutual learning in the absence of high-level scientific guidance

Atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (IMblaze370): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Background Microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer is typically unresponsive to immunotherapy. This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third-line setting. Methods IMblaze 370 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, done at 73 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and disease progression on or intolerance to at least two previous systemic chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. We used permuted-block randomisation (block size four) to assign patients (2:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks), or regorafenib (160 mg orally once daily for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle). Stratification factors were extended RAS status (wild-type vs mutant) and time since diagnosis of first metastasis (<18 months vs ≥18 months). Recruitment of patients with high microsatellite instability was capped at 5%. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. IMblaze370 is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02788279. Findings Between July 27, 2016, and Jan 19, 2017, 363 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group). At data cutoff (March 9, 2018), median follow-up was 7·3 months (IQR 3·7–13·6). Median overall survival was 8·87 months (95% CI 7·00–10·61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7·10 months (6·05–10·05) with atezolizumab, and 8·51 months (6·41–10·71) with regorafenib; the hazard ratio was 1·00 (95% CI 0·73–1·38; p=0·99) for the combination versus regorafenib and 1·19 (0·83–1·71; p=0·34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib. Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events in the combination group were diarrhoea (20 [11%] of 179), anaemia (ten [6%]), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (12 [7%]), and fatigue (eight [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 71 (40%) of 179 patients in the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group (sepsis) and one in the regorafenib group (intestinal perforation). Interpretation IMblaze370 did not meet its primary endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib. The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those of the individual drugs. These results underscore the challenge of expanding the benefit of immunotherapy to patients whose tumours have lower baseline levels of immune inflammation, such as those with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer