Clinical benefit of systemic treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours according to ESMO-MCBS and ASCO framework

Making progress against rare cancers: A case study on neuroendocrine tumors

In April 2023, the National Cancer Institute offered a roadmap for cancer research to achieve Cancer Moonshot goals. To reach these goals requires making progress for all cancers, not just those that are most common. Achieving progress against rare cancers, as well as common cancers, requires involvement of large clinical research networks. In 2020, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched an initiative on Conducting Rare Disease Research using PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. The purpose of this commentary is to introduce the broader community of cancer researchers to the PCORnet NET-PRO study (comparing the effects of different treatment approaches for neuroendocrine tumors on patient-reported outcomes) thereby demonstrating how researchers can use the PCORnet infrastructure to conduct large-scale patient-centered studies of rare cancers.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS.

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Evolving landscape of clinical trials in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in the past two decades

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are heterogenous malignancies that require well-designed trials to develop effective management strategies. This cross-sectional study aimed to illustrate the current landscape of clinical trials in GEP-NENs to provide insights for future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021 with GEP-NEN in the 'condition or disease' field.

RESULTS

We included 206 eligible trials. Most trials enrolled less than 50 patients (59.8%) and were sponsored by institutions other than government or industry (67.0%). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (86.6%) and countries located in Europe (30.1%) or Northern America (29.6%). The overall result reporting rates of GEP-NEN trials was 41.4%, and the median time from primary completion to result reporting was 101 months. Characteristics that improved the reporting of results included larger sample size, tumor differentiation specification for inclusion, progression-free survival as primary endpoint, industry sponsorship, and multicenter or multinational participation (all P < 0.05). Compared with trials registered between 2000 and 2011 (n = 28), trials registered between 2012 and 2021 (n = 178) were more likely to specify the Ki-67 index for inclusion (68.0% vs 35.7%, P = 0.002) and to be conducted outside Europe or Northern America (16.4% vs 3.7%, P = 0.02), while the sample size and the sponsorship did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel management options have been explored for GEP-NENs with more specific inclusion criteria during the past two decades. More efforts are needed to promote international collaborations in clinical trials and enhance timely result dissemination.

Health-related quality of life and treatment effects in patients with well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEPNENs) are often diagnosed in an advanced stage. As the optimal sequence of therapy remains largely unclear, all treatment‐related outcomes, including health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) prospects, should be assessed according to patients' preferences.

Methods

A targeted search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies on treatment effect and HRQoL, measured using the EORTC QLQ‐C30 tool, in patients with advanced, well‐differentiated GEPNENs. Study quality was assessed, and meta‐analyses were performed for global health status/QOL and tumour response.

Results

The search yielded 1,322 records, and 20 studies were included, examining somatostatin analogues (SSA), peptide receptor radionuclide therapies (PRRT), chemotherapy, SSA‐based combination therapies, and targeted therapies. Global HRQoL was stable, and rates for disease stabilisation were moderate to high across all treatments. Meta‐analyses for global health status/QOL after SSA treatment were not significant (mean difference: –0.3 [95% CI: −1.3 to 0.7]). The highest pooled overall tumour response rate was 33% (95% CI: 24–45%) for PRRT. The highest pooled clinical benefit rate was 94% (95% CI: 65–99%) for chemotherapy.

Conclusion

All treatments appeared beneficial for disease stabilisation while maintaining stable global health status/QOL. High‐quality HRQoL reporting was lacking. HRQoL should be a central outcome next to well‐established outcomes.

Twelve years of European cancer drug approval-a systematic investigation of the 'magnitude of clinical benefit'

Background

The magnitude of clinical benefit of solid cancer drugs can be standardly assessed via the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) developed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). We applied two ESMO-MCBS versions to the last 12 years of European cancer drug approval and compared two predefined marketing authorisation timeframes to identify potential score changes over time.

Material and methods

Originator solid cancer drugs and indication extensions that were approved between 1 January 2009 and 31 October 2020 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were included in our analyses. To evaluate the clinical benefit of these cancer indications, the original ESMO-MCBS (v 1.1) and a locally adapted ESMO-MCBS version were applied to the study sample. Thus, two ESMO-MCBS versions were compared, and an additional analysis was conducted to identify potential score differences between two approval timeframes 2009-2014 versus 2015-2020.

Results

A total of 144 cancer indications intended as curative (n = 9) or non-curative (n = 135) treatment options were eligible for an ESMO-MCBS assessment. Solely a minority of the assessed cancer indications met the meaningful clinical benefit (MCB) criteria independent of the applied version of the scale and treatment intention (original: n = 48/144, 33.3% versus adapted: n = 27/144, 18.8%). Comparing the two EMA approval timeframes, a growing number of approved cancer indications could be observed: 2009-2014: n = 9/year versus 2015-2020: n = 14/year. In addition, almost no difference in the proportion of cancer indications that have met the MCB criteria was detectable when comparing the predefined authorisation timeframes (MCB increase original: +4.1% and adapted: +3.9%).

Conclusion

Applying both versions of the ESMO-MCBS can help to identify potentially beneficial cancer indications, but also those with rather uncertain or low clinical benefit and thus, support the fair allocation of limited health care resources.

•

A total of 158 solid cancer indications were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the last 12 years.

•

A minority of these indications were deemed to be clinically meaningful after applying two versions of the ESMO-MCBS.

•

Comparing two EMA approval timeframes, no difference in the highest possible ESMO-MCBS grades could be observed.

•

The ESMO-MCBS supports the identification of beneficial as well as rather uncertain or low clinical benefit cancer drugs.

•

Evidenced-based decision making and the allocation of limited health care resources can be facilitated by the ESMO-MCBS.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Chromogranin A: A Valuable Serum Diagnostic Marker for Non-Insulinoma Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Pancreas in a Chinese Population

Background

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are uncommon neoplasms, with few studies to date assessing serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of P-NETs. This study assessed the ability of serum chromogranin A (CgA) concentrations to distinguish P-NETs from other pancreatic lesions in a Chinese population and to determine the histological grades of P-NETs.

Material/Methods

This prospective study enrolled 165 patients, including 73 with proven P-NETs, 60 with malignant tumors of the pancreas, and 32 with benign lesions of the pancreas. Serum CgA concentrations were measured by ELISA.

Results

Serum CgA concentrations were significantly higher in patients with P-NET than in patients with other pancreatic malignancies and benign lesions (P<0.001), but did not differ significantly in the latter 2 groups (P=0.827). Serum CgA concentrations were significantly higher in patients with non-insulinoma P-NETs than in the other groups (P<0.001), but did not differ significantly in patients with insulinoma and patients with non-P-NETs (P=0.668). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that a serum CgA concentration of 77.8 ng/ml could distinguish patients with non-insulinoma P-NETs from patients with non-P-NETs, with a sensitivity of 96.7%, a specificity of 76.1%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.897. In patients with P-NETs, multifactor analysis showed that the non-insulinoma subtype and the presence of liver metastases were associated with elevated serum CgA (both p<0.001).

Conclusions

Serum CgA concentration may be a valuable diagnostic biomarker for non-insulinoma P-NETs. Elevated serum CgA is likely associated with liver metastases.

Applying the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology Value Frameworks to Nasopharyngeal Cancer Treatments: Is Adding Induction Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Worthwhile?

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the incremental clinical benefit (ICB) and costs of induction chemotherapy (IC) when added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), concurrent chemotherapy (CC) when added to radiotherapy (RT), and CC plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) when added to RT for locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LA-NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported overall survival benefit with the use of IC, CC, and CC + AC in LA-NPC. We quantified the ICB using the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks. We calculated the incremental drug costs in US dollars using the lowest average wholesale price reported in the Lexicomp drug database.

RESULTS

We identified three RCTs on IC, three RCTs on CC, and four RCTs on CC + AC. The ICB was judged to be grade A based on the ESMO framework. The ASCO Net Health Benefit score ranged from 17.43 to 57.39. The incremental drug costs ranged from $133.46 to $626.14. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean Net Health Benefit scores (39.37 for IC v 37.61 for CC v 33.98 for CC + AC; P = .89) and costs ($383 for IC v $253 for CC v $460 for CC + AC; P = .27) between the three approaches. There was no statistically significant correlation between ICB and costs.

CONCLUSION

The magnitudes of ICB and incremental drug costs of adding of IC to CCRT, CC to RT, and CC + AC to RT for LA-NPC are not significantly different.

A Field Test of Major Value Frameworks in Chemotherapy of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma—To Know, Then to Measure

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have independently developed their own frameworks to assess the benefits of different cancer treatment options, which have significant implications in health science and policy. We aimed to compare these frameworks in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Methods: We identified all randomized controlled trials of systemic chemotherapies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma until April 5th, 2020. Trials were eligible if significant differences favoring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported. Two assessors independently scored the trials and the final scores were determined by consensus.

Results: Fifteen trials were included in the analysis. Five different toxicity grading criteria were applied to the 15 trials. Ten (66.7%) trials did not report grade 1–2 toxicities and eight (53.3%) did not report late toxicities. The number of acute toxicities reported was strikingly different (17 vs. 8) in two trials using the same regimen. All trials met the ESMO criteria for a high level of benefit. However, significant variations in ASCO scores between trials were observed (mean [standard deviation]: 38.9 [20.0]).

Conclusions: The underreporting and inconsistent reporting of toxicities would significantly impair the assessment of value using any framework. Moreover, there is a concern that the ASCO framework generated highly inconsistent scoring for treatments that met the ESMO criteria for a high level of benefit. The anomalies identified in the frameworks function would be helpful in their future improvement.

Neuroendocrine tumours and their microenvironment

Tumours can escape the immune system by expressing programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1), which allows them to bind to PD-1 on T-cells and avoid recognition by the immune system. Regulatory T-cells (Tregs), indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase (TDO) also play a role in immune suppression. Knowledge about the interaction of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) with their immune microenvironment and the role of immunotherapy in patients with NET is scarce. Here, we investigated the immune microenvironment of serotonin-producing (SP) and non-serotonin-producing NETs (NSP-NETs). Tumours of 33 patients with SP-NET and 18 patients with NSP-NET were studied. Immunohistochemical analyses were performed for PD-L1, T-cells, IDO, TDO, mismatch repair proteins (MMRp) and activated fibroblasts. PD-L1 expression was seen in < 1% of tumour and T-cells. T-cells were present in 33% of NETs, varying between 1 and 10% T-cells per high power field. IDO was expressed in tumour cells in 55% of SP-NETs and 22% of NSP-NETs (p = 0.039). TDO was expressed in stromal cells in 64% of SP-NETs and 13% of NSP-NETs (p = 0.001). No tumours had loss of MMRp. TDO-expressing stromal cells also strongly expressed α-SMA and were identified as cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs). Factors that are associated with a response to checkpoint inhibitor treatment were absent or only present to a limited extent in the tumour microenvironment of NETs. The expression of IDO and TDO in a substantial part of NETs and the presence of CAFs suggest two mechanisms that could be responsible for the cold immune microenvironment, which should be explored to enhance anti-tumour immunity and clinical responses.

Surgery Strategies for Gastric Cancer With Liver Metastasis

Gastric cancer with liver metastasis is defined as advanced gastric cancer and remains one of the deadliest diseases with poor prognosis. Approximately 4–14% of patients with gastric cancers presented with liver metastases at the initial diagnosis. Owing to its incurability, first-line treatment for gastric cancer with liver metastases is systematic chemotherapy, whereas surgery is usually performed to alleviate severe gastrointestinal symptoms. However, continuously emerging retrospective studies confirmed the role of surgery in gastric cancer with liver metastases and showed significantly improved survival rate in patients assigned to a group of surgery with or without chemotherapy. Therefore, more and more convincing data that resulted from prospective randomized clinical trials is in need to clarify the surgery strategies in patients with gastric cancer with liver metastasis.

Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles

In the last decades, the survival of many patients with cancer improved thanks to modern diagnostic methods and progresses in therapy. Still for several tumours, especially when diagnosed at an advanced stage, the benefits of treatment in terms of increased survival or quality of life are at best modest when not marginal, and should be weighed against the potential discomfort caused by medical procedures. As in other specialties, in oncology as well the dialogue between doctor and patient should be encouraged about the potential overuse of diagnostic procedures or treatments. Several oncological societies produced recommendations similar to those proposed by other medical disciplines adhering to the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign. In this review, we describe what was reported in the medical literature concerning adequacy of screening, diagnostic, treatment and follow-up procedures and the potential impact on them of the CW. We only marginally touch on the more complex topic of treatment appropriateness, for which several evaluation methods have been developed (including the European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale). Finally, we review the possible obstacles for the development of CW in the oncological setting and focus on the strategies which could allow CW to evolve in the cancer field, so as to enhance the therapeutic relationship between medical professionals and patients and promote more appropriate management.

Practical management of toxicities associated with targeted therapies for advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Neuroendocrine tumors are heterogeneous, rare malignancies that arise most frequently in the gastroenteropancreatic tract (GEPNET). The therapeutic armamentarium for the treatment of GEPNETs has expanded significantly over the last two decades, however the ideal sequencing strategy remains controversial. As this disease may be relatively slow-growing, patients are expected to be treated for longer periods, so that even mild toxicities can influence quality of life, compliance and outcome in the long run. Prospective data on optimal adverse event management are lacking and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and drug prescribing information. This review summarizes practical recommendations for toxicity management associated with the most commonly used GEPNET treatment options and stresses important focus points for future clinical trials.