Management of functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

: Functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) are rare and heterogeneous diseases in terms of both clinical and pathological aspects. These tumors secrete hormones or peptides, which may cause a wide variety of symptoms related to a clinical syndrome. The management of functional pNENs is still challenging for clinicians due to the need to control both tumor growth and specific symptoms. Surgery remains the cornerstone in the management of local disease because it can definitively cure the patient. However, when the disease is not resectable, a broad spectrum of therapeutic options, including locoregional therapy, somatostatin analogs (SSAs), targeted therapies, peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), and chemotherapy, are available. The present review summarizes the main key issues regarding the clinical management of these tumors, providing a specific highlight on their therapeutic approach

Retrospective epidemiological review on L. pneumophyla

During the first annual control on hospital infections, was observed a curious but explainable trend regarding evidence of Legionella pneumophyla isolated by water systems in numerous public and private nosocomial structures. After first massive isolation of L. pneumophyla strains at the beginning, a considerable reduction of isolates was noted, due to a program based on control and surveillance of water supplies, with regards to the aspectatives. But, in these last years a recurrent presence of isolates of L. pneumophyla was noted, despite all procedures used for the control of these bacteria

Utility of histopathological revision in the management of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasia

Background: Histological evaluation and grading assessment are key points in the diagnostic work-up of gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Aim: To analyze the impact of histopathological revision on the clinical management of patients with GEP-NEN. Materials and methods: Patients referred to our Center of Excellence between 2015 and 2021 were included in this study. Immunohistochemical slides at the time of initial diagnosis were reviewed to assess tumor morphology, diagnostic immunohistochemistry, and Ki67. Results: 101 patients were evaluated, with 65 (64.4%) gastrointestinal, 25 (24.7%) pancreatic, and 11 (10.9%) occult neoplastic lesions suspected to be of GEP origin. The main changes resulting from the revision were: first Ki-67 assessment in 15.8% of patients, Ki-67 change in 59.2% of patients and grading modification in 23.5% of patients. An additional immunohistochemical evaluation was performed in 78 (77.2%) patients, leading to a confirmation of GEP origin in 10 of 11 (90.9%) of unknown primary site neoplastic lesions and an exclusion of NEN diagnosis in 2 (2%) patients. After histopathological revision, a significant modification in clinical management was proposed in 42 (41.6%) patients. Conclusions: Histopathological revision in a referral NEN center is strongly advised in newly diagnosed GEP-NENs to properly plan prognostic stratification and therapeutic choice

Multidisciplinary management of neuroendocrine neoplasia: a real-world experience from a referral center

Purpose: Multidisciplinary approach is widely advised for an effective care of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). Since data on efficacy of multidisciplinary management of NENs patients in referral centers are scanty, this study aimed at analyzing the modality of presentation and clinical outcome of patients with NENs managed by a dedicated multidisciplinary team. Methods. In this prospective observational study, we included all consecutive new patients visiting the Sant'Andrea Hospital in Rome (ENETS-Center of Excellence) between January 2014 and June 2018. Results. A total of 195 patients were evaluated. The most frequent sites were pancreas (38.5%), small bowel (22%), and lung (9.7%). Median Ki67 was 3%. After the first visit at the center, additional radiological and/or nuclear medicine procedures were requested in 163 patients (83.6%), whereas histological data revision was advised in 84 patients (43.1%) (revision of histological slides: 27.7%, new bioptic sampling: 15.4%). After that, disease imaging staging and grading was modified in 30.7% and 17.9% of patients, respectively. Overall, a change in therapeutic management was proposed in 98 patients (50.3%). Conclusions. Multidisciplinary approach in a dedicated team may lead to change of disease imaging staging and grading in a significant proportion of patients. Enhancing referral routes to dedicated-NEN center should be promoted, since it may improve patients' clinical outcome

Sunitinib in patients with pre-treated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A real-world study

Introduction: Besides data reported in a Phase-III trial, data on sunitinib in pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (panNETs) are scanty. Aim: To evaluate sunitinib efficacy and tolerability in panNETs patients treated in a real-world setting. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis of progressive panNETs treated with sunitinib. Efficacy was assessed by evaluating progression-free survival, overall survival, and disease control (DC) rate (stable disease (SD) + partial response + complete response). Data are reported as median (25th\ue2\u80\u9375th IQR). Results: Eighty patients were included. Overall, 71.1% had NET G2, 26.3% had NET G1, and 2.6% had NET G3 neoplasms. A total of 53 patients (66.3%) had received three or more therapeutic regimens before sunitinib, with 24 patients (30%) having been treated with four previous treatments. Median PFS was 10 months. Similar risk of progression was observed between NET G1 and NET G2 tumors (median PFS 11 months and 8 months, respectively), and between patients who had received \ue2\u89\ua5 3 vs \ue2\u89\ua4 2 therapeutic approaches before sunitinib (median PFS 9 months and 10 months, respectively). DC rate was 71.3% and SD was the most frequent observed response, occurring in 43 pts (53.8%). Overall, 59 pts (73.8%) experienced AEs, which were grade 1\ue2\u80\u932 in 43 of them (72.9%), grade 3 in 15 pts (25.4%), and grade 4 in one patient (1.7%). Six pts (7.5%) stopped treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: The present real-world experience shows that sunitinib is a safe and effective treatment for panNETs, even in the clinical setting of heavily pre-treated, progressive diseases

Common germline variants within the CDKN2A/2B region affect risk of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are heterogeneous neoplasms which represent only 2% of all pancreatic neoplasms by incidence, but 10% by prevalence. Genetic risk factors could have an important role in the disease aetiology, however only a small number of case control studies have been performed yet. To further our knowledge, we genotyped 13 SNPs belonging to the pleiotropic CDKN2A/B gene region in 320 PNET cases and 4436 controls, the largest study on the disease so far. We observed a statistically significant association between the homozygotes for the minor allele of the rs2518719 SNP and an increased risk of developing PNET (ORhom = 2.08, 95% CI 1.05-4.11, p = 0.035). This SNP is in linkage disequilibrium with another polymorphic variant associated with increased risk of several cancer types. In silico analysis suggested that the SNP could alter the sequence recognized by the Neuron-Restrictive Silencer Factor (NRSF), whose deregulation has been associated with the development of several tumors. The mechanistic link between the allele and the disease has not been completely clarified yet but the epidemiologic evidences that link the DNA region to increased cancer risk are convincing. In conclusion, our results suggest rs2518719 as a pleiotropic CDKN2A variant associated with the risk of developing PNETs

Association of Upfront Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy With Progression-Free Survival Among Patients With Enteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

open57noIMPORTANCE Data about the optimal timing for the initiation of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for advanced, well-differentiated enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are lacking. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of upfront PRRT vs upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy with progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors who experienced disease progression after treatment with somatostatin analogues (SSAs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study analyzed the clinical records from 25 Italian oncology centers for patients aged 18 years or older who had unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, grades 1 to 3 enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and received either PRRT or chemotherapy or targeted therapy after experiencing disease progression after treatment with SSAs between January 24, 2000, and July 1, 2020. Propensity score matching was done to minimize the selection bias. EXPOSURES Upfront PRRT or upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was the difference in PFS among patients who received upfront PRRT vs among those who received upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. A secondary outcome was the difference in overall survival between these groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model to adjust for relevant factors associated with PFS and were corrected for interaction with these factors. RESULTS Of 508 evaluated patients (mean ([SD] age, 55.7 [0.5] years; 278 [54.7%] were male), 329 (64.8%) received upfront PRRT and 179 (35.2%) received upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. The matched group included 222 patients (124 [55.9%] male; mean [SD] age, 56.1 [0.8] years), with 111 in each treatment group. Median PFS was longer in the PRRT group than in the chemotherapy or targeted therapy group in the unmatched (2.5 years [95%CI, 2.3-3.0 years] vs 0.7 years [95%CI, 0.5-1.0 years]; HR, 0.35 [95%CI, 0.28-0.44; P < .001]) and matched (2.2 years [95% CI, 1.8-2.8 years] vs 0.6 years [95%CI, 0.4-1.0 years]; HR, 0.37 [95%CI, 0.27-0.51; P < .001]) populations. No significant differences were shown in median overall survival between the PRRT and chemotherapy or targeted therapy groups in the unmatched (12.0 years [95%CI, 10.7-14.1 years] vs 11.6 years [95%CI, 9.1-13.4 years]; HR, 0.81 [95%CI, 0.62-1.06; P = .11]) and matched (12.2 years [95% CI, 9.1-14.2 years] vs 11.5 years [95%CI, 9.2-17.9 years]; HR, 0.83 [95%CI, 0.56-1.24; P = .36]) populations. The use of upfront PRRT was independently associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.26-0.51; P < .001) in multivariable analysis. After adjustment of values for interaction, upfront PRRT was associated with longer PFS regardless of tumor functional status (functioning: adjusted HR [aHR], 0.39 [95%CI, 0.27-0.57]; nonfunctioning: aHR, 0.29 [95%CI, 0.16-0.56]), grade of 1 to 2 (grade 1: aHR, 0.21 [95%CI, 0.12-0.34]; grade 2: aHR, 0.52 [95%CI, 0.29-0.73]), and site of tumor origin (pancreatic: aHR, 0.41 [95%CI, 0.24-0.61]; intestinal: aHR, 0.19 [95%CI, 0.11-0.43]) (P < .001 for all). Conversely, the advantage was not retained in grade 3 tumors (aHR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.12-1.37; P = .13) or in tumors with a Ki-67 proliferation index greater than 10% (aHR, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.29-1.43; P = .31). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, treatment with upfront PRRT in patients with enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors who had experienced disease progression with SSA treatment was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes compared with upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Further research is needed to investigate the correct strategy, timing, and optimal specific sequence of these therapeutic options.openPusceddu, Sara; Prinzi, Natalie; Tafuto, Salvatore; Ibrahim, Toni; Filice, Angelina; Brizzi, Maria Pia; Panzuto, Francesco; Baldari, Sergio; Grana, Chiara M.; Campana, Davide; Davì, Maria Vittoria; Giuffrida, Dario; Zatelli, Maria Chiara; Partelli, Stefano; Razzore, Paola; Marconcini, Riccardo; Massironi, Sara; Gelsomino, Fabio; Faggiano, Antongiulio; Giannetta, Elisa; Bajetta, Emilio; Grimaldi, Franco; Cives, Mauro; Cirillo, Fernando; Perfetti, Vittorio; Corti, Francesca; Ricci, Claudio; Giacomelli, Luca; Porcu, Luca; Di Maio, Massimo; Seregni, Ettore; Maccauro, Marco; Lastoria, Secondo; Bongiovanni, Alberto; Versari, Annibale; Persano, Irene; Rinzivillo, Maria; Pignata, Salvatore Antonio; Rocca, Paola Anna; Lamberti, Giuseppe; Cingarlini, Sara; Puliafito, Ivana; Ambrosio, Maria Rosaria; Zanata, Isabella; Bracigliano, Alessandra; Severi, Stefano; Spada, Francesca; Andreasi, Valentina; Modica, Roberta; Scalorbi, Federica; Milione, Massimo; Sabella, Giovanna; Coppa, Jorgelina; Casadei, Riccardo; Di Bartolomeo, Maria; Falconi, Massimo; de Braud, FilippoPusceddu, Sara; Prinzi, Natalie; Tafuto, Salvatore; Ibrahim, Toni; Filice, Angelina; Brizzi, Maria Pia; Panzuto, Francesco; Baldari, Sergio; Grana, Chiara M.; Campana, Davide; Davì, Maria Vittoria; Giuffrida, Dario; Zatelli, Maria Chiara; Partelli, Stefano; Razzore, Paola; Marconcini, Riccardo; Massironi, Sara; Gelsomino, Fabio; Faggiano, Antongiulio; Giannetta, Elisa; Bajetta, Emilio; Grimaldi, Franco; Cives, Mauro; Cirillo, Fernando; Perfetti, Vittorio; Corti, Francesca; Ricci, Claudio; Giacomelli, Luca; Porcu, Luca; Di Maio, Massimo; Seregni, Ettore; Maccauro, Marco; Lastoria, Secondo; Bongiovanni, Alberto; Versari, Annibale; Persano, Irene; Rinzivillo, Maria; Pignata, Salvatore Antonio; Rocca, Paola Anna; Lamberti, Giuseppe; Cingarlini, Sara; Puliafito, Ivana; Ambrosio, Maria Rosaria; Zanata, Isabella; Bracigliano, Alessandra; Severi, Stefano; Spada, Francesca; Andreasi, Valentina; Modica, Roberta; Scalorbi, Federica; Milione, Massimo; Sabella, Giovanna; Coppa, Jorgelina; Casadei, Riccardo; Di Bartolomeo, Maria; Falconi, Massimo; de Braud, Filipp

Proposal of early CT morphological criteria for response of liver metastases to systemic treatments in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors:Alternatives to RECIST

RECIST 1.1 criteria are commonly used with computed tomography (CT) to evaluate the efficacy of systemic treatments in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and liver metastases (LMs), but their relevance is questioned in this setting. We aimed to explore alternative criteria using different numbers of measured LMs and thresholds of size and density variation. We retrospectively studied patients with advanced pancreatic or small intestine NETs with LMs, treated with systemic treatment in the first-and/or second-line, without early progression, in 14 European expert centers. We compared time to treatment failure (TTF) between responders and non-responders according to various criteria defined by 0%, 10%, 20% or 30% decrease in the sum of LM size, and/or by 10%, 15% or 20% decrease in LM density, measured on two, three or five LMs, on baseline (≤1 month before treatment initiation) and first revaluation (≤6 months) contrast-enhanced CT scans. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to adjust the association between response criteria and TTF on prognostic factors. We included 129 systemic treatments (long-acting somatostatin analogs 41.9%, chemotherapy 26.4%, targeted therapies 31.8%), administered as first-line (53.5%) or second-line therapies (46.5%) in 91 patients. A decrease ≥10% in the size of three LMs was the response criterion that best predicted prolonged TTF, with significance at multivariable analysis (HR 1.90; 95% CI: 1.06–3.40; p =.03). Conversely, response defined by RECIST 1.1 did not predict prolonged TTF (p =.91), and neither did criteria based on changes in LM density. A ≥10% decrease in size of three LMs could be a more clinically relevant criterion than the current 30% threshold utilized by RECIST 1.1 for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in patients with advanced NETs. Its implementation in clinical trials is mandatory for prospective validation. Criteria based on changes in LM density were not predictive of treatment efficacy. Clinical Trial Registration: Registered at CNIL-CERB, Assistance publique hopitaux de Paris as “E-NETNET-L-E-CT” July 2018. No number was assigned. Approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of University Medical Center Groningen.</p