Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with metastatic progressive pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: long-term toxicity, efficacy and prognostic biomarker data of phase II clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) have currently only limited treatment options available for patients in the metastatic phase (mPPGL) in either post-surgery or inoperable settings. However, these rare tumors overexpress somatostatin receptors and can thus be treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We present data about our 10-year experience treating 46 consecutive mPPGL patients with 90Y-DOTATOC or 177Lu-DOTATATE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients (20 men and 26 women, median age 52 years) showed positive scintigraphic imaging at 111In-octreotide or 68Ga-DOTATOC positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). 90Y-DOTATOC was administered in 12 patients, with cumulative dosages ranging from 7.4 to 11 GBq, while 34 patients received 18.5 or 27.5GBq of 177Lu-DOTATATE. We used Southwest Oncology Group Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria to evaluate treatment efficacy and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria to assess toxicity. The prognostic role of primary tumor site, hormone secretion, succinate dehydrogenase (SDHx) mutation, and metastatic involvement was also evaluated. RESULTS: Both 90Y-DOTATOC and 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT were well tolerated by patients without significant renal or bone marrow toxicity. The median follow-up was 73 months (range 5-146 months). The overall disease control rate (DCR) was 80% [95% confidence interval (CI) 68.9% to 91.9%] with a mean five cycles of therapy. However, 177Lu-DOTATATE patients showed a longer median overall survival (mOS) than those receiving 90Y-Dotatoc and a better DCR when higher dosages were administered, even if a direct comparison was not carried out. Syndromic patients had a poorer mOS. SDHx mutations did not interfere with treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: PRRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with progressive mPPGL, especially at higher dosages. The longer mOS of 177Lu-DOTATATE-treated patients in our protocols indicates the former radiopharmaceutical as the better candidate for further clinical application.

A critical reappraisal of false negative sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma.

Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) have completely changed the clinical management of cutaneous melanoma. This procedure has been accepted worldwide as a recognized method for nodal staging. SLNB is able to accurately determine nodal basin status, providing the most useful prognostic information. However, SLNB is not a perfect diagnostic test. Several large-scale studies have reported a relatively high false-negative rate (5.6-21%), correctly defined as the proportion of false-negative results with respect to the total number of "actual" positive lymph nodes. The main purpose of this review is to address the technical issues that nuclear physicians, surgeons, and pathologists should carefully consider to improve the accuracy of SLNB by minimizing its false-negative rate. In particular, SPECT/CT imaging has demonstrated to be able to identify a greater number of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) than those found by planar lymphoscintigraphy. Furthermore, a unique definition in the international guidelines is missing for the operational identification of SLNs, which may be partly responsible for this relatively high false-negative rate of SLNB. Therefore, it is recommended for the scientific community to agree on the radioactive counting rate threshold so that the surgeon can be better radioguided to detect all the lymph nodes which are most likely to harbor metastases. Another possible source of error may be linked to the examination of the harvested SLNs by conventional histopathological methods. A more careful and extensive SLN analysis (e.g. molecular analysis by RT-PCR) is able to find more positive nodes, so that the false-negative rate is reduced. Older age at diagnosis, deeper lesions, histologic ulceration, head-neck anatomical location of primary lesions are the clinical factors associated with false-negative SLNBs in melanoma patients. There is still much controversy about the clinical significance of a false-negative SLNB on the prognosis of melanoma patients. Indeed, most studies have failed to show that there is worse melanoma-specific survival for false-negative compared to true-positive SLNB patients.