1
|
Pollock RF, Brennan VK, Peters R, Paprottka PM. Association between objective response rate and overall survival in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with radioembolization: a systematic literature review and regression analysis. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2020; 20:997-1009. [PMID: 32930618 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2020.1814748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers arising from neuroendocrine cells. The aim was to evaluate objective response rate (ORR) as a predictor of overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic NETs (mNETs) treated with radioembolization (RE). METHODS Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of RE treatment of mNETs were identified by systematic literature review (SLR). Pooled ORR and OS estimates were calculated and a weighted generalized linear model (GLM) of ORR as a predictor of OS was derived, stratified by ORR assessment criteria and RE type (Yttrium-90 resin or glass microspheres). RESULTS The SLR identified 32 observational studies. Mean ORR was 41% (95% confidence interval 38-45%). The Yttrium-90 resin and glass microsphere GLMs accounted for 59% and 57% of OS deviance, respectively. ORR was a significant predictor of OS in the resin microspheres model (p < 0.001), but not the glass microspheres model (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS A weighted GLM showed a significant relationship between ORR and OS in patients with mNETs treated with Yttrium-90 resin microspheres. ORR could therefore potentially be an OS surrogate in future trials of Yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Further research is needed to confirm the relationship between ORR and OS and the difference between resin and glass microspheres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard F Pollock
- Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Covalence Research Ltd , London, UK
| | - Victoria K Brennan
- Health Economics, Pricing, Reimbursement & Market Access, Sirtex Medical United Kingdom Ltd , London, UK
| | - Ralph Peters
- Health Economics, Pricing, Reimbursement & Market Access, Sirtex Medical United Kingdom Ltd , London, UK
| | - Philipp M Paprottka
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München , Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bösch F, Ilhan H, Pfahler V, Thomas M, Knösel T, Eibl V, Pratschke S, Bartenstein P, Seidensticker M, Auernhammer CJ, Spitzweg C, Guba MO, Werner J, Angele MK. Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases is safe and effective prior to major hepatic resection. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2020; 9:312-321. [PMID: 32509817 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.07.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Background Radioembolization (RE) is well established in the treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases. However surgery is rarely performed after RE, although liver resection is the gold standard in the treatment of localized neuroendocrine liver metastases. Therefore, aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of liver resection after RE in a homogenous cohort. Methods From a prospective surgical (n=494) and nuclear medical (n=138) database patients with NELM who underwent liver resection and/or RE were evaluated. Between September 2011 and December 2017 eight patients could be identified who underwent liver resection after RE (mean therapeutic activity of 1,746 Mbq). Overall and progression free survival were evaluated as well as epidemiological and perioperative factors. The surgical specimens were analyzed for necrosis, fibrosis, inflammation, and steatosis. Results The mean hepatic tumor load of patients, who had liver surgery after RE, was 31.4% with a mean Ki-67 proliferation index of 5.9%. The majority of these patients (7/8) received whole liver RE prior to liver resection, which did not increase morbidity and mortality compared to a surgical collective. Indications for RE were oncological (6/8) or carcinoid syndrome associated reasons (2/8). Mean overall survival was 25.1 months after RE and subsequent surgery. Tumor necrosis in radioembolized lesions was 29.4% without evidence of fibrosis and inflammation in hepatic tissue. Conclusions This is the first study analyzing the multimodal therapeutic approach of liver resection following whole liver RE. This treatment algorithm is safe, does not lead to an increased morbidity and is associated with a favorable oncological outcome. Nonetheless, patient selection remains a key issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Bösch
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Vanessa Pfahler
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Thomas
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Thomas Knösel
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Institute of Pathology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Valentin Eibl
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Sebastian Pratschke
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Bartenstein
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Max Seidensticker
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph J Auernhammer
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Internal Medicine 4, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christine Spitzweg
- Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Internal Medicine 4, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Markus O Guba
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jens Werner
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Martin K Angele
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.,Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Frilling A, Clift AK, Braat AJAT, Alsafi A, Wasan HS, Al-Nahhas A, Thomas R, Drymousis P, Habib N, Tait PN. Radioembolisation with 90Y microspheres for neuroendocrine liver metastases: an institutional case series, systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2019; 21:773-783. [PMID: 30733049 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.12.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2018] [Revised: 12/03/2018] [Accepted: 12/11/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuroendocrine liver metastases are clinically challenging due to their frequent disseminated distribution. This study aims to present a British experience with an emerging modality, radioembolisation with yttrium-90 labelled microspheres, and embed this within a meta-analysis of response and survival outcomes. METHODS A retrospective case series of patients treated with SIR-Spheres (radiolabelled resin microspheres) was performed. Results were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis of published results with glass or resin microspheres. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as complete or partial response. Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as complete/partial response or stable disease. RESULTS Twenty-four patients were identified. ORR and DCR in the institutional series was 14/24 and 21/24 at 3 months. Overall survival and progression-free survival at 3-years was 77.6% and 50.4%, respectively. There were no grade 3/4 toxicities post-procedure. A fixed-effects pooled estimate of ORR of 51% (95% CI: 47%-54%) was identified from meta-analysis of 27 studies. The fixed-effects weighted average DCR was 88% (95% CI: 85%-90%, 27 studies). CONCLUSION Current data demonstrate evidence of the clinical effectiveness and safety of radioembolisation for neuroendocrine liver metastases. Prospective randomised studies to compare radioembolisation with other liver directed treatment modalities are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Frilling
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Ashley K Clift
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Arthur J A T Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3508, GA Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ali Alsafi
- Department of Imaging, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Harpreet S Wasan
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Adil Al-Nahhas
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Thomas
- Department of Imaging, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Panagiotis Drymousis
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Nagy Habib
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| | - Paul N Tait
- Department of Imaging, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Radioembolization with 90Y Resin Microspheres of Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases: International Multicenter Study on Efficacy and Toxicity. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2019; 42:413-425. [DOI: 10.1007/s00270-018-2148-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2018] [Accepted: 12/15/2018] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
|
5
|
Colquhoun SD. Neuroendocrine tumors with hepatic metastases: A review of evolving treatment options. LIVER RESEARCH 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.livres.2018.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
6
|
Kim HS, Shaib WL, Zhang C, Nagaraju GP, Wu C, Alese OB, Chen Z, Brutcher E, Renfroe M, El-Rayes BF. Phase 1b study of pasireotide, everolimus, and selective internal radioembolization therapy for unresectable neuroendocrine tumors with hepatic metastases. Cancer 2018; 124:1992-2000. [PMID: 29451701 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2017] [Revised: 10/08/2017] [Accepted: 10/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) metastasize to the liver. Everolimus and selective internal radioembolization (SIRT) are approved treatments. Pasireotide is a somatostatin analogue with an affinity for somatostatin receptors 1, 2, 3, and 5. Everolimus and pasireotide may potentiate SIRT radiosensitization and inhibit rebound angiogenesis. This study evaluated the safety of pasireotide, everolimus, and SIRT. METHODS This 3 + 3 phase 1 trial evaluated 3 dose levels of everolimus (2.5, 5, and 10 mg/day), pasireotide (600 μg twice daily), and SIRT (SIR-Spheres dose on days 9 and 37). Eligibility criteria included well or moderately differentiated NETs, bilobar liver metastases, and progression on long-acting octreotide. Toxicities and responses were evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined in the first 28 days. Correlative markers-angiopoietin 1, angiopoietin 2, basic fibroblast growth factor, collagen V, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1, interleukin 8, M30, M65, placenta growth factor, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2-were assessed. The Norfolk Quality of Life-Neuroendocrine Tumor Questionnaire was used to assess the quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Thirteen patients were enrolled; 1 was not evaluable for the primary endpoint. Eleven patients had well-differentiated tumors. The primary sites included small bowel (4), pancreas (3), lung (2), colon (1), gastric (1), and unknown primary (2) were unknown. Four had liver-only disease; 12 completed the planned treatment. No DLTs were observed. There was no treatment-related mortality. The most common toxicity was hyperglycemia. Clinically significant liver toxicity was not observed. One patient had liver progression. QOL improved on treatment. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 18.6 and 46.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The recommended phase 2 dose of everolimus is 10 mg daily in combination with pasireotide and SIRT. The regimen is well tolerated. Preliminary activity appears promising. Cancer 2018;124:1992-2000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun S Kim
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Walid L Shaib
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Chao Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Christina Wu
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Olatunji B Alese
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Zhengjia Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Edith Brutcher
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Meredith Renfroe
- Clinical Trials Office, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Bassel F El-Rayes
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
de Mestier L, Zappa M, Hentic O, Vilgrain V, Ruszniewski P. Liver transarterial embolizations in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2017; 18:459-471. [PMID: 28975561 DOI: 10.1007/s11154-017-9431-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The management of patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET) and non-resectable liver metastases is challenging. Liver-directed transarterial embolization (TAE), transarterial chemo-embolization (TACE) and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) have a place of choice among other treatment modalities. However, their utilization relies on a low level of proof, due to the lack of prospective data, the absence of comparative studies and considerable heterogeneity between local practices. TAE and TACE generally achieve average symptomatic, biological and radiological responses of 75%, 56% and 50%, with progression-free survival of 12-18 months, with acceptable tolerance. Although not clearly demonstrated, TACE may be more effective than TAE in pancreatic NET, but not in small-intestine NET. SIRT has been developed more recently and may achieve similar results, with improved tolerance, but decreased cost-effectiveness, although no prospective comparison has been published to date. There is currently no strong argument to choose between TAE, TACE and SIRT, and they have not been compared to other treatment modalities. The evaluation of their efficacy has mostly relied on criteria based on size variations, which do not take into account tumor viability and metabolism, and thus may not be relevant. These techniques may be especially effective when performed as first-line therapies, in patients with non-major liver involvement (<75%) and with hypervascular metastases. Finally, studies exploring their combination with systemic therapies are ongoing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louis de Mestier
- Department of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology, DHU UNITY, ENETS Center of Excellence, Beaujon Hospital (APHP), Paris-Diderot University, 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
| | - Magaly Zappa
- Department of Radiology, DHU UNITY, ENETS Center of Excellence, Beaujon Hospital (APHP), Paris-Diderot University, Clichy, France
| | - Olivia Hentic
- Department of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology, DHU UNITY, ENETS Center of Excellence, Beaujon Hospital (APHP), Paris-Diderot University, 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France
| | - Valérie Vilgrain
- Department of Radiology, DHU UNITY, ENETS Center of Excellence, Beaujon Hospital (APHP), Paris-Diderot University, Clichy, France
| | - Philippe Ruszniewski
- Department of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology, DHU UNITY, ENETS Center of Excellence, Beaujon Hospital (APHP), Paris-Diderot University, 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Barbier CE, Garske-Román U, Sandström M, Nyman R, Granberg D. Selective internal radiation therapy in patients with progressive neuroendocrine liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 43:1425-31. [DOI: 10.1007/s00259-015-3264-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2015] [Accepted: 11/10/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
|
9
|
Frilling A, Clift AK. Therapeutic strategies for neuroendocrine liver metastases. Cancer 2014; 121:1172-86. [PMID: 25274401 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2014] [Revised: 04/09/2014] [Accepted: 04/10/2014] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Patients who have neuroendocrine tumors frequently present with liver metastases. A wide panel of treatment options exists for these patients. Liver resection with curative intent achieves the best long-term results. Highly selected patients may be considered for liver transplantation. Substantial recurrence rates reported after surgical approaches call for neoadjuvant and adjuvant concepts. Liver-directed, locally ablative procedures are recommended for patients with limited, nonresectable tumor burden. Angiographic liver-directed techniques, such as transarterial embolization, transarterial chemoembolization, and selective internal radiotherapy, offer excellent palliation for patients with liver-predominant disease. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy is a promising palliative procedure for patients with hepatic and/or extrahepatic metastases. The efficacy of these treatment options needs to be evaluated in randomized trials. Somatostatin analogues have demonstrated effectiveness not only for symptomatic relief in patients with secreting tumors but also for the control of proliferation in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors and most recently also in those originating from the pancreas. Chemotherapy is an option mainly for those with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and high-grade tumors irrespective of the origin. Novel drugs targeting specific pathways within the tumor cell have produced improved progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Despite such a diverse armamentarium, there is uncertainty with regard to the optimal treatment regimens. Newly introduced molecular-based markers, along with the conduction of clinical trials comparing the efficacy of treatment modalities, offer a chance to move the treatment of neuroendocrine tumor disease toward personalized patient care. In this report, the authors review the approaches for treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases, identify shortcomings, and anticipate future perspectives. Furthermore, clinical practice recommendations are provided for currently available treatment options. Although multiple modalities are available for the treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases, optimal management is unclear. The current knowledge pertaining to these treatment options is analyzed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Frilling
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Devcic Z, Rosenberg J, Braat AJA, Techasith T, Banerjee A, Sze DY, Lam MGEH. The efficacy of hepatic 90Y resin radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 2014; 55:1404-10. [PMID: 25012459 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.135855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED (90)Y resin radioembolization is an emerging treatment in patients with liver-dominant metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (mNETs), despite the absence of level I data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of this modality in a meta-analysis of the published literature. METHODS A comprehensive review protocol screened all reports in the literature. Strict selection criteria were applied to ensure consistency among the selected studies: human subjects, complete response data with time interval, resin microspheres, more than 5 patients, not a duplicate cohort, English language, and separate and complete data for resin-based (90)Y treatment of mNET if the study included multiple tumor and microsphere types. Selected studies were critically appraised on 50 study criteria, in accordance with the research reporting standards for radioembolization. Response data (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were extracted and analyzed using both fixed and random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS One hundred fifty-six studies were screened; 12 were selected, totaling 435 procedures for response assessment. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias (P = 0.841). Critical appraisal revealed a median of 75% of desired criteria included in selected studies. Very high between-study heterogeneity ruled out a fixed-effects model. The random-effects weighted average objective response rate (complete and partial responses, CR and PR, respectively) was 50% (95% confidence interval, 38%-62%), and weighted average disease control rate (CR, PR, and stable disease) was 86% (95% confidence interval, 78%-92%). The percentage of patients with pancreatic mNET was marginally associated with poorer response (P = 0.030), accounting for approximately 23% of the heterogeneity among studies. The percentage of CR and PR correlated with median survival (R = 0.85; P = 0.008). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis confirms radioembolization to be an effective treatment option for patients with hepatic mNET. The pooled data demonstrated a high response rate and improved survival for patients responding to therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zlatko Devcic
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Jarrett Rosenberg
- Radiology Sciences Laboratory, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Arthur J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tust Techasith
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Arjun Banerjee
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|