open access

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing
Research paper
Submitted: 2023-07-25
Accepted: 2023-10-12
Published online: 2023-11-21
Get Citation

Re-treatment with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE or [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and [90Y]Y-DOTA-TATE of patients with progressive neuroendocrine neoplasm

Adam Daniel Durma1, Marek Saracyn1, Maciej Kołodziej1, Katarzyna Jóźwik-Plebanek1, Adrianna Mróz1, Waldemar Kapusta1, Beata Dmochowska1, Grzegorz Kamiński1
·
Nucl. Med. Rev 2023;26:143-152.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Endocrinology and Radioisotope Therapy, Military Institute of Medicine — National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland

open access

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing
Original articles
Submitted: 2023-07-25
Accepted: 2023-10-12
Published online: 2023-11-21

Abstract

Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are heterogeneous groups of tumours derived from neuroendocrine cells of the ectoderm or endoderm. They are considered rare, with an estimated incidence and prevalence of 6/100,000 and 35/100,000 respectively, and a noticeable upward trend. Radioligand therapy (RLT) using beta-radiation-emitters combined with somatostatin analogues is an effective and relatively safe treatment method. It is usually used as a second-line therapy in case of progressive disease.

Material and methods: In retrospective analysis covering eight years of observation (2015–2023) of patients treated in a single highest-reference NEN centre, a subgroup of 13 who received RLT re-treatment (177Lu or 177Lu/90Y-mixture) was identified. Epidemiological aspects, renal, hepatic, haematological parameters and chromogranin A serum concentration were analysed.

Results: The median PFS after the first cycle of RLT was 53.8 months (IQR = 19.3). Directly after the second cycle of RLT disease stabilization and progression was observed in 11/13 (84.6%) and 2/13 (15.4%) patients respectively. After the second cycle of RLT median observation time for the study group was 16.2 months. Eight out of 13 patients were reachable for long-term observation and stabilization was confirmed in 62.5 % (5/8), progression in 12.5% (1/8) and death in 25% (2/8) patients. Median survival time in patients with confirmed death was 7 months. During observation, an increase in creatinine concentration with a decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was noticed, however, the values were at a statistical trend level (p = 0.056; p = 0.071). The increase of liver parameters was statistically, but not clinically significant. The decrease in albumin concentration and fasting glucose concentration were not significant. An increase in chromogranin A concentration correlated, although not statistically, with the progression of the disease. A statistically significant decrease in the number of all bone marrow cell lines was observed. The first RLT cycle caused a higher decrease in blood parameters than the second. There were no differences in PFS or laboratory parameters depending on the radioligand ([177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE vs. [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE/[90Y]Y-DOTA-TATE).

Conclusions: In follow-up after RLT re-treatment stabilization was observed in 62.5%, progression in 12.5% and death in 25% of patients. Decrease of glomerular filtration, and bone marrow parameters resulted from the cumulative adverse effect of RLT, the natural ageing process, and the progression of the disease. Side effects were mainly caused by the first treatment cycle. There was no significant influence on the measured parameters, depending on the radioisotope used. Re-treatment of RLT seems to be a reliable and relatively safe method, thus should be considered in patients who underwent one cycle of RLT and responded to the treatment.

Abstract

Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are heterogeneous groups of tumours derived from neuroendocrine cells of the ectoderm or endoderm. They are considered rare, with an estimated incidence and prevalence of 6/100,000 and 35/100,000 respectively, and a noticeable upward trend. Radioligand therapy (RLT) using beta-radiation-emitters combined with somatostatin analogues is an effective and relatively safe treatment method. It is usually used as a second-line therapy in case of progressive disease.

Material and methods: In retrospective analysis covering eight years of observation (2015–2023) of patients treated in a single highest-reference NEN centre, a subgroup of 13 who received RLT re-treatment (177Lu or 177Lu/90Y-mixture) was identified. Epidemiological aspects, renal, hepatic, haematological parameters and chromogranin A serum concentration were analysed.

Results: The median PFS after the first cycle of RLT was 53.8 months (IQR = 19.3). Directly after the second cycle of RLT disease stabilization and progression was observed in 11/13 (84.6%) and 2/13 (15.4%) patients respectively. After the second cycle of RLT median observation time for the study group was 16.2 months. Eight out of 13 patients were reachable for long-term observation and stabilization was confirmed in 62.5 % (5/8), progression in 12.5% (1/8) and death in 25% (2/8) patients. Median survival time in patients with confirmed death was 7 months. During observation, an increase in creatinine concentration with a decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was noticed, however, the values were at a statistical trend level (p = 0.056; p = 0.071). The increase of liver parameters was statistically, but not clinically significant. The decrease in albumin concentration and fasting glucose concentration were not significant. An increase in chromogranin A concentration correlated, although not statistically, with the progression of the disease. A statistically significant decrease in the number of all bone marrow cell lines was observed. The first RLT cycle caused a higher decrease in blood parameters than the second. There were no differences in PFS or laboratory parameters depending on the radioligand ([177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE vs. [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE/[90Y]Y-DOTA-TATE).

Conclusions: In follow-up after RLT re-treatment stabilization was observed in 62.5%, progression in 12.5% and death in 25% of patients. Decrease of glomerular filtration, and bone marrow parameters resulted from the cumulative adverse effect of RLT, the natural ageing process, and the progression of the disease. Side effects were mainly caused by the first treatment cycle. There was no significant influence on the measured parameters, depending on the radioisotope used. Re-treatment of RLT seems to be a reliable and relatively safe method, thus should be considered in patients who underwent one cycle of RLT and responded to the treatment.

Get Citation

Keywords

neuroendocrine neoplasms; NEN; RLT; PRRT; 177Lu; 90Y; re-treatment

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Supplementary Table 1. Reference ranges of parameters assessed in the study
Download
15KB
About this article
Title

Re-treatment with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE or [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and [90Y]Y-DOTA-TATE of patients with progressive neuroendocrine neoplasm

Journal

Nuclear Medicine Review

Issue

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing

Article type

Research paper

Pages

143-152

Published online

2023-11-21

Page views

386

Article views/downloads

193

DOI

10.5603/nmr.96672

Bibliographic record

Nucl. Med. Rev 2023;26:143-152.

Keywords

neuroendocrine neoplasms
NEN
RLT
PRRT
177Lu
90Y
re-treatment

Authors

Adam Daniel Durma
Marek Saracyn
Maciej Kołodziej
Katarzyna Jóźwik-Plebanek
Adrianna Mróz
Waldemar Kapusta
Beata Dmochowska
Grzegorz Kamiński

References (41)
  1. Leotlela PD, Jauch A, Holtgreve-Grez H, et al. Genetics of neuroendocrine and carcinoid tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2003; 10(4): 437–450.
  2. Das S, Dasari A, Das S, et al. Epidemiology, incidence, and prevalence of neuroendocrine neoplasms: are there global differences? Curr Oncol Rep. 2021; 23(4): 43.
  3. Lawrence B, Gustafsson BI, Chan A, et al. The epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2011; 40(1): 1–18, vii.
  4. Raphael MJ, Chan DL, Law C, et al. Principles of diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumours. CMAJ. 2017; 189(10): E398–E404.
  5. Rindi G, Mete O, Uccella S, et al. Overview of the 2022 WHO classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Pathol. 2022; 33(1): 115–154.
  6. Scherübl H, Streller B, Stabenow R, et al. Clinically detected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are on the rise: epidemiological changes in Germany. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19(47): 9012–9019.
  7. Hauso O, Gustafsson BI, Kidd M, et al. Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology: contrasting Norway and North America. Cancer. 2008; 113(10): 2655–2664.
  8. Tsai HJ, Wu CC, Tsai CR, et al. The epidemiology of neuroendocrine tumors in Taiwan: a nation-wide cancer registry-based study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(4): e62487.
  9. Chang JS, Chen LT, Shan YS, et al. An updated analysis of the epidemiologic trends of neuroendocrine tumors in Taiwan. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 7881.
  10. Koizumi T, Otsuki K, Tanaka Y, et al. Epidemiology of neuroendocrine neoplasmas in Japan: based on analysis of hospital-based cancer registry data, 2009–2015. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022; 22(1): 105.
  11. Spigel DR, Hainsworth JD, Greco FA, et al. Neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary site. Semin Oncol. 2009; 36(1): 52–59.
  12. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, et al. One hundred years after "carcinoid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(18): 3063–3072.
  13. Juhlin CC, Zedenius J, Höög A, et al. Metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms of unknown primary: clues from pathology workup. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(9): 2210.
  14. Dąbkowski K, Starzyńska T, Dąbkowski K, et al. Management of small, asymptomatic, non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: follow-up, ablation, or surgery? Endokrynol Pol. 2023; 74(1): 25–30.
  15. Kos-Kudła B, Foltyn W, Malczewska A, et al. Polish Network of Neuroendocrine Tumours. Update of the diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (recommended by the Polish Network of Neuroendocrine Tumours). Endokrynol Pol. 2022; 73(3): 387–454.
  16. Chan DL, Singh S, Chan DL, et al. Current chemotherapy use in neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2018; 47(3): 603–614.
  17. Bardasi C, Spallanzani A, Benatti S, et al. Irinotecan-based chemotherapy in extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas: survival and safety data from a multicentric Italian experience. Endocrine. 2021; 74(3): 707–713.
  18. Andreetti C, Ibrahim M, Gagliardi A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy, extent of resection, and immunoistochemical neuroendocrine markers as prognostic factors of early-stage large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Thorac Cancer. 2022; 13(7): 900–912.
  19. Oziel-Taieb S, Zemmour C, Raoul JL, et al. Efficacy of FOLFOX chemotherapy in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Anticancer Res. 2021; 41(4): 2071–2078.
  20. Strosberg JR, Caplin ME, Kunz PL, et al. NETTER-1 investigators, NETTER-1 investigators. Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high‑dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22(12): 1752–1763.
  21. Aslani A, Snowdon GM, Bailey DL, et al. Lutetium-177 DOTATATE production with an automated radiopharmaceutical synthesis system. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2015; 3(2): 107–115.
  22. Sowa-Staszczak A, Pach D, Kunikowska J, et al. Efficacy and safety of 90Y-DOTATATE therapy in neuroendocrine tumours. Endokrynol Pol. 2011; 62(5): 392–400.
  23. Bodei L, Kidd M, Paganelli G, et al. Long-term tolerability of PRRT in 807 patients with neuroendocrine tumours: the value and limitations of clinical factors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(1): 5–19.
  24. Kunikowska J, Królicki L, Hubalewska-Dydejczyk A, et al. Clinical results of radionuclide therapy of neuroendocrine tumours with 90Y-DOTATATE and tandem 90Y/177Lu-DOTATATE: which is a better therapy option? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(10): 1788–1797.
  25. Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology. 2016; 103(2): 153–171.
  26. Imaoka H, Sasaki M, Takahashi H, et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2017; 24(9): 475–483.
  27. Yao JC, Fazio N, Singh S, et al. RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumours, Fourth Trial (RADIANT-4) Study Group. Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 387(10022): 968–977.
  28. Yalchin M, Oliveira A, Theocharidou E, et al. The impact of radiological response to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy on overall survival in patients with metastatic midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2017; 42(3): e135–e141.
  29. Pusceddu S, Prinzi N, Tafuto S, et al. Association of upfront peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with progression-free survival among patients with enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(2): e220290.
  30. Faggiano A, Di Maio S, Mocerino C, et al. ELIOS, ELIOS. Therapeutic sequences in patients with grade 1-2 neuroendocrine tumors (NET): an observational multicenter study from the ELIOS group. Endocrine. 2019; 66(2): 417–424.
  31. Waas T, Schulz A, Lotz J, et al. Distribution of estimated glomerular filtration rate and determinants of its age dependent loss in a German population-based study. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 10165.
  32. Schlackow I, Simons C, Oke J, et al. Long-term health outcomes of people with reduced kidney function in the UK: A modelling study using population health data. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(12): e1003478.
  33. Neild GH, Neild GH. Life expectancy with chronic kidney disease: an educational review. Pediatr Nephrol. 2017; 32(2): 243–248.
  34. Saracyn M, Durma AD, Bober B, et al. Long-Term complications of radioligand therapy with Lutetium-177 and Yttrium-90 in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms. Nutrients. 2022; 15(1): 185.
  35. Geenen L, Nonnekens J, Konijnenberg M, et al. Overcoming nephrotoxicity in peptide receptor radionuclide therapy using [Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours. Nucl Med Biol. 2021; 102-103: 1–11.
  36. Bober B, Saracyn M, Lubas A, et al. Hepatic complications of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with Lutetium-177 and Yttrium-90 in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasm. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2022; 25(1): 54–61.
  37. Kesavan M, Turner JH, Kesavan M, et al. Myelotoxicity of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy of neuroendocrine tumors: a decade of experience. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2016; 31(6): 189–198.
  38. Bober B, Saracyn M, Zaręba K, et al. Early complications of radioisotope therapy with Lutetium-177 and Yttrium-90 in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms-a preliminary study. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(4): 919.
  39. Teunissen JJM, Krenning EP, de Jong FH, et al. Effects of therapy with [177Lu-DOTA 0,Tyr 3]octreotate on endocrine function. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 36(11): 1758–1766.
  40. Fuksiewicz M, Kowalska M, Kolasińska-Ćwikła A, et al. Prognostic value of chromogranin A in patients with GET/NEN in the pancreas and the small intestine. Endocr Connect. 2018; 7(6): 803–810.
  41. Dannoon SF, Alenezi SA, Elgazzar AH, et al. The efficacy of the available peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun. 2017; 38(12): 1085–1093.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

phone: +48 58 320 94 94, fax: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl