HORMONET: a phase II trial of tamoxifen for estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive neuroendocrine tumors.

Background: Nearly 30% of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have evidence of immunohistochemical (IHC) expression of estrogen (ER) and/or progesterone (PR) receptors. Therefore, targeting ER/PR may offer an effective NET-directed treatment to select patients. Methods: We conducted a multicenter Simon two-stage single-arm phase II trial of tamoxifen in patients with metastatic, progressive NETs. Eligible patients had positive IHC expression of ER and/or PR ⩾ 1%. Prior therapy with somatostatin analogs was required for progressing/functioning cases. Main exclusion criterion was aggressive disease requiring cytotoxic therapy. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) at week 24 by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. We planned to enroll 23 patients in the first stage, to reach a DCR at week 24 of 70% (versus 50%); if ⩾12 patients reached the primary end point, a total of 37 would be included. Results: From February 2019 to February 2022, 23 out of 59 patients were eligible and enrolled: 15 (65%) were females; the most common sites were pancreas (11; 48%) and small bowel (6; 26%). In all, 13 patients (56.5%) had G2 NETs. At a median follow-up of 27 months, 13 patients (56.5%) had stable disease at week 24 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.9 months [interquartile range (IQR): 3.7-12.1]. The best response was stable disease in 13 patients, with most patients experiencing minor tumor growth. Median PFS times were not significantly different according to ER/PR < or ⩾30% (p = 0.49) or ER versus PR expression (p = 0.19). One patient experienced grade 2 constipation. Conclusion: Tamoxifen for ER-/PR-positive NETs patients is safe but offers modest antitumor effects. Trial registry name: Study of Tamoxifen in Well Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors and Hormone Receptor Positive Expression (HORMONET). URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03870399?term=03870399&draw=2&rank=1. Registration number: NCT03870399.

Symptomatic Recurrence and Survival Outcomes After Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Does Intensive Follow-up Evaluation Improve Survival?

BACKGROUND: Intensive surveillance after treatment of gastric cancer patients with curative intent may lead to an earlier diagnosis of disease recurrence, but its impact on survival is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate whether early diagnosis of disease recurrence among asymptomatic patients was associated with long-term survival. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients with stages 1 to 3C gastric adenocarcinoma treated between 1999 and 2018. All recurrence events were classified as symptomatic or asymptomatic (detected by follow-up tests), and their clinicopathologic characteristics, patterns of recurrence, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 669 patients treated with a total gastrectomy in 48.6% and a D2-lymphadenectomy in 88.8% of the cases. Most of the tumors were pT3-4 (46.5%), with 45.5% involving lymph node metastases and 42.3% manifesting a diffuse histology. During a median follow-up period of 80.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.3-84.8 months), 166 patients had recurrences (24.8%), 65.7% of which were symptomatic. The peritoneum was the main site of recurrence (37.2%), and peritoneal recurrence was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.2-2.37). The median disease-free, post-recurrence survival, and OS periods in the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups were respectively 13.4 versus 17.2 months (p = 0.04), 11.9 versus 4.7 months (p < 0.001), and 29.9 versus 26.4 months (p = 0.21). When OS was analyzed among the patients with non-peritoneal recurrence, no difference was observed between the two groups (31.3 vs 31.1 months; p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis of asymptomatic disease recurrence did not affect the OS of the gastric cancer patients treated with curative intent. The use of intensive surveillance strategies in this scenario still requires further evidence.

Does hipec improve outcomes in gastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy and radical surgery? A propensity-score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been associated with improved survival when compared with surgery alone for non-metastatic gastric cancer patients in randomized trials and meta-analyses. However, little evidence is available regarding the use of HIPEC in nonmetastatic patients who are treated with perioperative chemotherapy and radical surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the putative survival benefit of HIPEC in the subgroup of gastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy and surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that included gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancer patients who were treated with perioperative chemotherapy and curative resection in a single cancer center in the period between 2006 and 2017. In this time period, younger patients with diffuse-type tumors and serosa invasion or positive lymph node disease were often offered an adjuvant HIPEC protocol. This study compared the survival outcomes of these patients to the ones of those who received only perioperative chemotherapy and resection. A 2:1 propensity-score matched analysis for the two groups was also performed, and variables used were postchemotherapy T (ypT) and N (ypN) stages, histology and tumor site. RESULTS: The study population comprised 269 subjects, 241 treated with chemotherapy and surgery and 28 who also received HIPEC. The mean age was 59 years old (standard deviation: 12.2) and 60% of all individuals were male. A total gastrectomy was performed in 137 patients and a distal resection in 132, with a D2-lymphadenectomy in 97.4% of the sample. Overall 60-day morbidity and mortality rates were 35.3% and 3.3%, respectively. In the HIPEC group, patients were younger, and more frequently had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 1 to 2 classification, tumors located in the gastric body, had diffuse histology, and ypN+ disease. Overall survival (OS; 5 years) results in the HIPEC and no HIPEC group were 59.5% vs 68.7% (P = .453), and disease-free survival (DFS) ones were 49.5% and 65.8% (P = .060), respectively. In the multivariable Cox regression model, ypT and ypN were independent overall and DFS predictors; also, ASA 3 to 4 classification and diffuse histology were associated with worse OS. In the matched analysis, HIPEC did not improve either overall (53.5% vs 59.5%; P = .517) or DFS (50.0% vs 49.5%; P = .993). CONCLUSION: Treatment with HIPEC in patients who received perioperative chemotherapy and a D2-resection did not improve survival outcomes. Both ypT and ypN stages remained as the most important survival predictors in this cohort.