Kulke M H, Ruszniewski P, Van Cutsem E, Lombard-Bohas C, Valle J W, De Herder W W, Pavel M, Degtyarev E, Brase J C, Bubuteishvili-Pacaud L, Voi M, Salazar R, Borbath I, Fazio N, Smith D, Capdevila J, Riechelmann R P, Yao J C
Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA.
Department of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology University of Paris VII and Beaujon Hospital, Paris, France.
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;28(6):1309-1315. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx078.
Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET.
Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis.
Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively.
The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.
多项研究已证实第一代生长抑素类似物(SSA)在神经内分泌肿瘤(NET)中具有抗肿瘤活性,其主要作用于生长抑素受体(sstr)2型和5型亚型。第二代SSA帕西瑞肽作用于多种sstr亚型。我们比较了帕西瑞肽联合依维莫司与单独使用依维莫司治疗晚期、高分化、进展期胰腺NET患者的疗效和安全性。
患者按1:1随机分组,分别接受依维莫司(每日口服10mg)与帕西瑞肽长效释放剂(每28天肌肉注射60mg)联合治疗或单独使用依维莫司(每日口服10mg);根据既往SSA使用情况、基线血清嗜铬粒蛋白A和神经元特异性烯醇化酶进行分层。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS)。次要终点包括总生存期、客观缓解率、疾病控制率和安全性。在探索性分析中评估生物标志物反应。
160例入组患者中,79例随机分配至联合治疗组,81例分配至依维莫司组。治疗组间基线人口统计学和疾病特征相似。PFS未观察到显著差异:联合治疗组为16.8个月,依维莫司组为16.6个月(风险比,0.99;95%置信区间,0.64 - 1.54)。联合治疗组与依维莫司组患者的部分缓解率分别为20.3%和6.2%;然而,总体疾病控制率相似(分别为77.2%和82.7%)。中位总生存期未观察到显著改善。不良事件与两种药物已知的安全性特征一致;3级或4级空腹高血糖分别见于37%和11%的患者。
在本研究中,与单独使用依维莫司相比,帕西瑞肽联合依维莫司未使PFS得到改善。有必要开展进一步研究以阐明SSA在NET中减缓肿瘤生长的机制。