Systemic therapy in incurable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a clinical practice guideline

Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in pancreatic cancer clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review and quality assessment

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, which is attributed to limited treatment options. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have been proposed to provide benefits in treating pancreatic cancer. Despite its importance in treatment, clinicians are not generally well equipped to counsel their patients about CAM therapies. This review identified the quantity and assessed the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) providing CAM recommendations for the treatment and/or management of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify pancreatic cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2011 to 2022. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs published by non-profit agencies on treatment and/or management of pancreatic cancer for adults were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Results

From 31 eligible search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 3 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The mean scaled domain percentages of the CPGs in this study (overall, CAM-specific) were as follows: scope and purpose (81.3%, 77.8%), stakeholder involvement (63.9%, 42.6%), rigor-of-development (51.0%, 40.3%), clarity-of-presentation (83.3%, 54.6%), applicability (42.3%, 30.5%), and editorial independence (58.3%, 58.3%).

Conclusions

Evaluation of the CPGs demonstrated that quality varied both within and between CPGs. CPGs that scored well could be used by patients and clinicians as the basis for discussion for the use of CAM therapies. Future research should identify other appropriate CAM therapies for further development of CPGs for pancreatic cancer.

Registration

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022334025).

Characterization of a Novel Entity of G3 (High-grade Well-differentiated) Colorectal Neuroendocrine Tumors (NET) in the SEER Database

OBJECTIVES

Small studies suggest that a new entity of high-grade (HG) (G3, by Ki-67 or mitotic index) well-differentiated (histologically) gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) exists, but prognosis and characteristics are unknown. We further characterized demographics and prognosis of patients with colorectal G3 NETs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to study colorectal NETs diagnosed from 2000 to 2015. We evaluated demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics. We compared overall survival (OS) for G1-2 NET, G3 NET, and NEC (neuroendocrine carcinoma). We used logistic regression to detect grade associations and Cox proportional hazards models to examine predictors of survival.

RESULTS

We identified 5894 cases with colorectal NET (5780 [98.1%] G1-2 and 114 [1.9%] G3); the cohort was 66% white, 47% male, and had a median age of 54. Patients with G3 NET were likely to be older (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-4.19 for 60 to 69 vs. <50), unmarried (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.02-2.38), and less likely to be diagnosed after 2010 (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.06-0.15). OS for G3 NET (median, 36 mo; 95% CI: 13-92) fell between OS for NEC (median, 7 mo; 95% CI: 6-8), and G1-2 NET (median not reached, >120 mo). Among G1-3 NETs, black patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03-1.62), older patients (HR: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.63-5.01 for age 60 to 69 vs. <50), unmarried patients (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.17-1.68), and those with HG features (HR: 3.97; 95% CI: 3.15-4.99) had worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We defined a subset of G3 NETs that are HG and well differentiated, more common in older, unmarried patients, with a prognosis between that of NEC and G1-2 NETs. Our analysis adds the first national registry study in support of a new classification of nonpancreatic HG and well-differentiated NETs.

Toxicity of a combined therapy using the mTOR-inhibitor everolimus and PRRT with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in Lewis rats

PURPOSE

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA0,TYR3-octreotate ([177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE) and the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus are both approved for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). However, tumour progression is still frequent, and treatment strategies need further improvement. One possible approach could be to combine different therapy options. In this study, we investigated the toxicity of a combined treatment with everolimus and [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in female Lewis rats.

METHODS

Animals received 200 MBq of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE once and/or 5 mg/kg body weight everolimus or placebo weekly for 16 weeks and were divided into four groups (group 1, placebo; group 2, everolimus; group 3, placebo + [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE; group 4, everolimus + [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE). Blood levels of creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were assessed weekly to monitor nephrotoxicity, and a full blood count was performed at the time of euthanasia to monitor myelotoxicity. Additionally, renal function was analysed by sequential [99mTc]Tc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine ([99mTc]Tc-MAG3) scintigraphies. Histopathological examination was performed in all the kidneys using a standardized renal damage score (RDS).

RESULTS

Rats receiving everolimus showed a significantly lower increase in creatinine levels than those receiving placebo. Everolimus therapy reduced white blood count significantly, which was not observed for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE. Functional renal scintigraphies using [99mTc]Tc-MAG3 showed a compromised initial tracer uptake after PRRT and slower but still preserved excretion after everolimus. Histology showed no significant RDS differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Renal scintigraphy is a highly sensitive tool for the detection of renal function impairment after a combination of everolimus and PRRT. Additional treatment with everolimus does not increase renal and haematological toxicity of PRRT with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE.