Healthcare cost by primary tumour, functioning status and treatment among patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours: The LyREMeNET study

Computing the Cost of Care per Patient per Day for Patients With Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

PURPOSE

Patients with well-differentiated, low-grade metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) usually have a long median survival and require complex, expensive care over many years at multidisciplinary centers. The cost burden for patients and institutions serves as a barrier to care. Understanding the drivers of these costs and whether intense monitoring adds value will help to optimize value-based care.

METHODS

We adapted the cost of care per patient per day (CCPD) validated methodology to measure cost while accounting for varying follow-up duration. We queried the Stanford NEN Database, which aggregates data from the electronic health record and other electronic sources, to study patients with metastatic NENs receiving regular care at Stanford. Current Procedural Terminology codes for services incurred during the monitoring period for each patient were mapped to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the Medicare fee schedule.

RESULTS

Two hundred two patients between 2010 and 2017 were studied with a mean CCPD of $119.11 in US dollars (USD); NEN-specific systemic therapy made up 55% of this cost. Somatostatin analogs were the costliest systemic therapy. Systemic therapy was the driver of cost differences among patients with various primary tumor types, stage of disease, tumor differentiation and grade, and functional hormone status. Patients in the most expensive CCPD group did not have a significant survival benefit (P = .66).

CONCLUSION

The CCPD methodology was effective in studying cancer care value in NENs. Systemic therapy, specifically somatostatin analogs, was the primary driver of cost, and intense monitoring and higher-cost care did not improve survival outcomes.

Assessment of the Role of Leptin and Adiponectinas Biomarkers in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Data on the possible connection between circulating adipokines and PanNENs are limited. This novel study aimed to assess the serum levels of leptin and adiponectin and their ratio in patients with PanNENs and to evaluate the possible relationship between them and PanNEN's grade or stage, including the presence of metastases. The study group consisted of PanNENs (n = 83), and healthy controls (n = 39). Leptin and adiponectin measurement by an ELISA assay was undertaken in the entire cohort. The serum concentration of adiponectin was significantly higher in the control group compared to the study group (p < 0.001). The concentration of leptin and adiponectin was significantly higher in females than in males (p < 0.01). Anincreased leptin-adiponectin ratio was observed in well-differentiated PanNENs (G1) vs. moderatelydifferentiated PanNENs (G2) (p < 0.05). An increased leptin-adiponectin ratio was found in PanNENs with Ki-67 < 3% vs. Ki-67 ≥ 3% (p < 0.05). PanNENs with distal disease presented lower leptin levels (p < 0.001) and a decreased leptin-adiponectin ratio (p < 0.01) compared with the localized disease group. Leptin, adiponectin, and the leptin-adiponectin ratio may serve as potential diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers for PanNENs. Leptin levels and the leptin-adiponectin ratio may play an important role as predictors of malignancy and metastasis in PanNENs.

A practical proposal on treatment sequencing of metastatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours

According to the neuroendocrine tumour (NET) characteristics, 3 to 7 different treatment options are available, corresponding to 6 to 5,040 theoretical different sequences. Even though each patient is unique and despite a large heterogeneity in NET characteristics, the present review aims to discuss the main sequences and addresses how one can propose the best sequence to treat metastatic NET (mNET) on a case-by-case basis. Each treatment must be discussed during dedicated multi-disciplinary meetings, and inclusions in clinical trials should be favoured. After a thorough characterization of patients and their mNET, and taking into account the availability of drugs, the first-line treatment should be chosen according to the treatment aim. The latter is determined based on three main topics (efficacy, safety, and patient preferences) that do not necessarily converge and must be defined a priori. At baseline, physicians should design an a priori full therapeutic sequence, which may evolve at each step depending on the response to previous treatment, the occurrence of chronic toxicities, and the patients' perception of the prior treatment. To improve knowledge in terms of effectiveness and risk of cumulative toxicities regarding the different sequences, real-world data using long follow-up durations are necessary; such issues will not be resolved by randomized clinical trials.