Neuroendocrine tumors of unknown primary site: gold dust or misdiagnosed neoplasms?

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumors of an unknown primary site are rarer than other neuroendocrine tumors (0.6-2% of all neuroendocrine tumors) and have a poor prognosis. The aim of the study was to review the cases of unknown primary site neuroendocrine tumors encountered at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan between 1984 and 2008 in order to verify their incidence and evaluate their characteristics and prognosis. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: During the study period, 750 neuroendocrine tumor patients attended our Institute, 82 of whom (10.9%) were diagnosed as having neuroendocrine tumors of an unknown primary site. The data from their medical records were analyzed descriptively, and survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the logrank test, considering patient, tumor and treatment-related characteristics. RESULTS: The 82 patients with neuroendocrine tumors of an unknown primary site (34 males) had a median age of 60 years; 57 (69.5%) had histologically well-differentiated tumors, 3 (3.7%) poorly differentiated tumors, and 22 (26.8%) had tumors that could not be classified. Of the 52 patients (62.2%) who underwent Octreoscan® (Bykgulden Italia SpA), 40 (78.4%) showed a pathological uptake and 11 (21.6%) were negative. Thirty-one patients (37.8%) underwent metastatic site surgery, which was radical in 11 cases (35.4%). Forty-eight patients (58.5%) received somatostatin analogues, and 41 (50.0%) underwent chemotherapy. At the end of the study period, 59 patients (72.0%) had died, 31 (53.0%) because of disease progression, and 23 (28.0%) were still alive. CONCLUSIONS: Neuroendocrine tumors of an unknown primary site are difficult to identify but their incidence is higher than previously reported, and the prognosis remains unfavorable.

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial.

PURPOSE: A phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference -3.6% (95% confidence interval, -13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116). CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

Multicentre, open, noncomparative Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fotemustine, cisplatin, alpha-interferon and interleukin-2 in advanced melanoma patients.

The efficacy and tolerability of fotemustine, cisplatin, alpha-interferon and interleukin-2 biochemotherapy were evaluated in advanced melanoma patients. The schedule consisted of fotemustine (100 mg/m) and cisplatin (75 mg/m) intravenous on day 1, followed by subcutaneous interleukin-2 at a dose of 4.5 MIU on days 3-5 and 8-12 and alpha-interferon at a dose of 3 MU three times/week, every 3 weeks for six cycles. Sixty patients were evaluated for tumour response, 12 of whom had brain metastases (BM). One patient (1.7%) with BM achieved a complete response and partial responses were observed in 10 patients (16.7%), including one BM patient. Overall response rate was 18.4 and 16.6% in BM patients (median response duration 8.2 months). Disease control, defined as overall response and stable disease, was 58.4% in all patients and 75% in patients with BM. Median time to progression was 3.2 months (4.2 months in BM patients). Median overall survival was 8.9 months (7.6 months in BM patients). Toxic events were mild to moderate. This combination was well tolerated and showed acceptable clinical activity, especially in BM patients.

Merkel cell carcinoma after liver transplantation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare and aggressive neuroendocrine skin cancer with a very low incidence in the general population. MCC seems to be common in transplant recipients and 52 cases have been reported in the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: This report describes a Merkel cell carcinoma which developed in a liver transplant recipient. To our knowledge, this is the second such case reported, as Merkel cell carcinoma most commonly occurs after kidney and heart transplants. The treatment approach is described and the literature on the subject is reviewed. CONCLUSION: There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal therapeutic approach to Merkel cell carcinoma. In transplant recipients, such tumors are more common and more aggressive but their treatment does not differ from the treatment of Merkel cell carcinomas in the general population.

Are capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) suitable treatments for progressing low-grade and high-grade neuroendocrine tumours?

PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) in neuroendocrine tumours' (NETs) treatment. METHODS: Forty patients (pts) with advanced NETs were treated. Of these, 13 had untreated poorly differentiated NETs, 27 had well-differentiated NETs in progression after somatostatin analogues. Patients received oxaliplatin e.v. 130 mg/mq i.v. and capecitabine 2,000 mg/mq/die. The primary sites of the disease were: lung (10 pts), pancreas (15 pts), small bowel (8 pts), unknown (1 pt), others (6 pts). RESULTS: In 13 pts with poorly differentiated NETs objective responses (OR) were: 3 PR (23%), 1 SD (7%), 9 PD (70%). Biochemical responses were 11%. In 27 patients with well-differentiated NETs the OR were: 8 PR (30%), 13 SD (48%) and 6 PD (22%). Biochemical and symptomatic responses were 20 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The XELOX regimen is effective and tolerated in well-differentiated NETs after progression following somatostatin analogues.

The estrogen suppression after sequential treatment with formestane in advanced breast cancer patients.

In postmenopausal patients, estrogens have an important role in breast cancer growth and aromatase inhibitors (AI) suppress the aromatase enzyme system which converts androgens into estrogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on estrogen suppression of formestane 250 mg i.m. fortnightly, given immediately after the failure of a previous treatment with non-steroidal AI. Twenty-two advanced breast cancer patients progressing on letrozole, anastrozole and aminoglutethimide entered the study. At the beginning of the study, the serum estrogen levels were suppressed by the previous treatment with non-steroidal AI, and the following treatment with formestane moderately maintained this suppression; in four patients serum estrogen levels increased fivefold after 10 weeks. Neither complete nor partial responses were observed; 11 patients (50%) showed a stable disease lasting > or = 6 months, and the median time to progression was 6 months (range 3-9 months). No correlation was observed between clinical responses and serum estrogen suppression. Tolerability was satisfactory, and no patient withdrew from the study due to adverse events. In conclusion, formestane has demonstrated a moderate activity in estrogen suppression, and there is evidence that, at the failure of a previous treatment with non-steroidal AI, the sequential use of steroidal AI is feasible. This approach can be used in clinical practice in order to offer a disease control with a satisfactory quality of life.

Current treatments of neuroendocrine tumors role of biotherapy and chemotherapy.

Neuroendocrine tumors are rare neoplasms originating from cells belonging to a diffuse or confined neuroendocrine system and characterized by a significant histopatologic and biologic heterogeneity. Timely diagnosis is delayed because they are often clinically silent for their low differentiation grade and the absence of any symptom due to abnormal hormone release. For these reasons, many neuroendocrine tumor patients are not treated medically for metastatic or inoperable disease. Medical treatments include biotherapy, with interferon-alpha and somatostatin analogues, and chemotherapy. Somastostatin analogues are widely used in patients with symptoms and with carcinoids of low differentiation grade. Interferon-alpha is used alone or in combination with somatostatin analogues. Chemotherapy is active in patients with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. The therapeutic regimen commonly used is the combination of cisplatinum and etoposide. In conclusion, no standard treatment for NET has yet been identified, and the response criteria suggested by ITMO remain a reference point. The clinical aspect of the disease and biologic features suggest the identification of neuroendocrine tumors patients suitable for the appropriate therapies. On these bases, it is recommended that diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine tumors be carried out at specialized oncological centers involved in clinical trials.

Twelve months of treatment with octreotide-LAR reduces joint thickness in acromegaly.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of age, gender, duration and control of acromegaly on the reversibility of arthropathy. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: 30 de novo patients with active acromegaly, 30 cured patients and 30 healthy subjects were studied in a tranverse and an open longitudinal study design. METHODS: Shoulder, wrist and knee thickening was measured by ultrasonography at study entry in all 90 subjects and after 12 Months of treatment with octreotide-LAR (OCT-LAR) at a dose of 10-40 mg every 28 days in the 30 de novo patients. RESULTS: Thickness at all joint sites was greater in the active than in the cured patients and controls (P<0.001), and was greater in the cured patients than in the controls (P<0.001). There was no gender difference, but joint thickness was less in the patients with disease duration >10 Years. Age significantly correlated with wrist (r=-0.55; P<0.001), right knee (r=-0.45; P=0.01), and left knee thickness (r=-0.42; P=0.02) in patients with active disease, and with wrist thickness (r=0.88; P<0.0001) in controls. Twelve Months of OCT-LAR treatment led to disease control in 18 patients (60%). There was a decrease in the thickness of the shoulder (15.1+/-3.2%), wrist (20.5+/-3.1%), right knee (22.2+/-3.4%) and left knee (18.2+/-2.8%) in all patients but the reduction in joint thickness at all sites was greater in the patients with controlled disease after OCT-LAR treatment than in the uncontrolled patients (P<0.01). Shoulder and right knee thickening normalized in respectively 11 (61.1%) and 16 (88.9%) well-controlled patients. CONCLUSIONS: Growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) suppression by 12 Months' OCT-LAR treatment is accompanied by a significant decrease in the thickness of both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing joints (mainly in patients whose disease is controlled) regardless of disease duration. These findings suggest that tIssue hypertrophy in the context of the acromegalic arthropathy can be improved by suppressing IGF-I levels.