The efficacy, toxicity and survival of salvage retreatment PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATATE in patients with progressive NET following initial course of PRRT

Radionuclide Theranostics in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper aims to address the latest findings in neuroendocrine tumor (NET) theranostics, focusing on new evidence and future directions of combined diagnosis with positron emission tomography (PET) and treatment with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Following NETTER-1 trial, PRRT with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE was approved by FDA and EMA and is routinely employed in advanced G1 and G2 SST (somatostatin receptor)-expressing NET. Different approaches have been proposed so far to improve the PRRT therapeutic index, encompassing re-treatment protocols, combinations with other therapies and novel indications. Molecular imaging holds a potential added value in characterizing disease biology and heterogeneity using different radiopharmaceuticals (e.g., SST and FDG) and may provide predictive and prognostic parameters. Response assessment criteria are still an unmet need and new theranostic pairs showed preliminary encouraging results. PRRT for NET has become a paradigm of modern theranostics. PRRT holds a favorable toxicity profile, and it is associated with a prolonged time to progression, reduction of symptoms, and improved patients' quality of life. In light of further optimization, different new strategies have been investigated, along with the development of new radiopharmaceuticals.

Extended peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: evaluating nephrotoxicity and therapeutic effectiveness in neuroendocrine tumor patients receiving more than four treatment cycles

PURPOSE

Currently, the most used peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) regimen for neuroendocrine tumors comprises 4 treatment cycles, and there is not enough large-scale data to support the safety of more individualized extended PRRT. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and potential nephrotoxicity related to PRRT using more than four treatment cycles.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we included patients who had received at least four PRRT cycles and had available follow-up data. We analyzed renal function indicators before and after multiple treatments, comparing nephrotoxicity in patients receiving four cycles ("standard") with those receiving more than four ("extended treatment"). Nephrotoxicity was assessed via creatinine levels and CTCAE creatinine grades. Treatment effectiveness was gauged using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, focusing on overall survival and disease-specific survival (DSS). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26 (IBM), R 4.2.3, and GraphPad Prism 9.0.0. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value of less than 0.05.

RESULTS

Our study cohort consisted of 281 patients in the standard group and 356 in the extended treatment group. No significant differences in baseline characteristics or renal function were noted between the two groups pre-treatment. Mean post-treatment creatinine levels did not significantly differ between the standard (89.30 ± 51.19 μmol/L) and extended treatment groups (93.20 ± 55.98 μmol/L; P = 0.364). Similarly, there was no statistical significance between the CTCAE creatinine grades of the two groups (P = 0.448). Adverse renal events were observed in 0.4% of patients in the standard group and 1.1% in the extended treatment group. After a median follow-up time of 88.3 months, we found that median overall survival was significantly higher in the extended treatment group (72.8 months) compared to the standard treatment group (52.8 months). A Cox regression analysis further supported these findings, indicating a better prognosis for the extended treatment group in terms of overall survival (HR: 0.580, P < 0.001) and DSS (HR: 0.599, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that extending PRRT treatment beyond the standard four cycles may be a safe and effective therapeutic strategy for NET patients. This approach could be particularly beneficial for patients experiencing disease recurrence or progression following standard treatment.

Diagnosis, Management and Theragnostic Approach of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) constitute an ideal target for radiolabeled somatostatin analogs. The theragnostic approach is able to combine diagnosis and therapy by the identification of a molecular target that can be diagnosed and treated with the same radiolabeled compound. During the last years, advances in functional imaging with the introduction of somatostatin analogs and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, have improved the diagnosis and treatment of GEP-NENs. Moreover, PET/CT imaging with ¹⁸F-FDG represents a complementary tool for prognostic evaluation of patients with GEP-NENs. In the field of personalized medicine, the theragnostic approach has emerged as a promising tool in diagnosis and management of patients with GEP-NENs. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence on diagnosis and management of patients with GEP-NENs, focusing on the theragnostic approach.

Lutathera® Orphans: State of the Art and Future Application of Radioligand Therapy with 177Lu-DOTATATE

Lutathera® is the first EMA- and FDA-approved radiopharmaceutical for radioligand therapy (RLT). Currently, on the legacy of the NETTER1 trial, only adult patients with progressive unresectable somatostatin receptor (SSTR) positive gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NET) can be treated with Lutathera®. Conversely, patients with SSTR-positive disease arising from outside the gastroenteric region do not currently have access to Lutathera® treatment despite several papers in the literature reporting the effectiveness and safety of RLT in these settings. Moreover, patients with well-differentiated G3 GEP-NET are also still “Lutathera orphans”, and retreatment with RLT in patients with disease relapse is currently not approved. The aim of this critical review is to summarize current literature evidence assessing the role of Lutathera® outside the approved indications. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials evaluating new possible applications of Lutathera® will be considered and discussed to provide an updated picture of future investigations.