Pancreas transplantation as rescue therapy in a patient with type 1 diabetes and concurrent subcutaneous insulin resistance.

Patients with type 1 diabetes and concurrent subcutaneous insulin resistance present unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for clinicians. The standard therapeutic approach is the administration of intravenous insulin. Pancreatic transplantation should be considered at an appropriate time, particularly in the event of life-threatening ketoacidosis, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, catheter-associated thrombosis, and infections. We present the case of a 24-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes since early childhood and increasingly uncontrollable subcutaneous and intramuscular insulin resistance. Furthermore, we present the diagnostic pathway and therapeutic interventions performed, culminating in pancreatic transplantation as a curative approach. Immediate graft function resulted in optimal glycemic control.

European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) 2024 guidance paper for the management of well-differentiated small intestine neuroendocrine tumours.

Both the incidence and prevalence of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours from the small intestine (Si-NET) are gradually increasing. Most patients have non-functioning tumours with subtle GI symptoms and tumours are often discovered incidentally by endoscopy or at advanced disease stages by imaging depicting mesenteric lymph node and /or liver metastases while around 30% of the patients present with symptoms of the carcinoid syndrome. Adequate biochemical assessment and staging including functional imaging is crucial for treatment-related decision-making that should take place in an expert multidisciplinary team setting. Preferably, patients should be referred to specialised ENETS Centres of Excellence or centres of high expertise in the field. This guidance paper provides the current evidence and best knowledge for the management of Si-NET grade (G) 1-3 following 10 key questions of practical relevance for the diagnostic and therapeutic decision making.

A Hybrid Type III Effectiveness-Implementation Trial to Optimize Medication Safety With Oral Antitumor Therapy in Real-World: The AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center.

PURPOSE: Implementation science endeavors to facilitate the translation of evidence-based research into clinical routine. The clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program evaluated in the randomized AMBORA trial on medication safety with oral antitumor therapeutics (OAT) optimizes care delivery and provides significant benefits for patients, treatment teams, and health care systems. Thus, we aimed to investigate the implementation of this care program within the AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center (AMBORA Center). METHODS: The AMBORA Center within a University Comprehensive Cancer Center offered several services (eg, patient consultations) and was evaluated according to the RE-AIM framework. This multicenter hybrid type III trial focused on implementation outcomes (eg, patient recruitment, referring units, evaluation of services) while concurrently investigating effectiveness (eg, side effects, medication errors). Quantitative and qualitative assessments were combined. RESULTS: The AMBORA Center conducted over 800 consultations with 420 patients in seven institutions. The primary end point of counseling 70% of patients treated with OAT was not reached. Patients were referred by 15 treatment units compared with 11 units in the AMBORA trial. On the basis of heterogeneous referral rates and characteristics across the institutions, barriers and facilitators of the implementation process were derived. Several survey results (eg, stakeholder interviews, online/paper-based questionnaires) reflected a high appreciation of services by patients and health care professionals. The severity of 60.1% (178 of 296) of detected side effects improved, and 86.3% (297 of 344) of medication errors were resolved. CONCLUSION: Despite not reaching the primary implementation outcome, the AMBORA Center included more treatment units and demonstrated patient benefit of the AMBORA care program by meeting all effectiveness outcomes. We outlined quantitative and qualitative implementation characteristics to enhance outreach and foster further dissemination of centers to optimize medication safety with OAT.

[Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: update 2024]. / Gastrointestinale neuroendokrine Tumoren ­ Update 2024.

Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are rare and clinically heterogeneous. From a diagnostic perspective, well-differentiated tumours must be distinguished from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas. The disease may be associated with autonomous hormone secretion by the tumour, and the resulting syndromes are often associated with reduced survival. Somatostatin analogues form the backbone of antiproliferative and antisecretory treatment alongside local ablative procedures. In pancreatic NET, prospective studies confirm the value of specific chemotherapy, particularly in terms of higher remission rates. New tyrosine kinase inhibitors are an option for patients that have failed to respond to standard treatments. Inhibition of HIF2-alpha is an emerging effective treatment option for patients with von Hippel-Lindau-syndrome associated tumours, e.g. pancreatic NET. Radioligand therapy is an established second-line option for advanced NET of the small intestine, and recent study results support its use in pancreatic NET in earlier-line treatment. Due to the complexity of the disease, management of NET patients should be performed in close collaboration with a specialized multidisciplinary team.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE plus long-acting octreotide versus high­dose long-acting octreotide for the treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced grade 2-3, well-differentiated, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-2): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no standard first-line treatment options for patients with higher grade 2-3, well-differentiated, advanced, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE (177Lu-Dotatate) treatment. METHODS: NETTER-2 was an open-label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) with newly diagnosed higher grade 2 (Ki67 ≥10% and ≤20%) and grade 3 (Ki67 >20% and ≤55%), somatostatin receptor-positive (in all target lesions), advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from 45 centres across nine countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. We used interactive response technologies to randomly assign (2:1) patients to receive four cycles (cycle interval was 8 weeks ± 1 week) of intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate plus intramuscular octreotide 30 mg long-acting repeatable (LAR) then octreotide 30 mg LAR every 4 weeks (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose octreotide 60 mg LAR every 4 weeks (control group), stratified by neuroendocrine tumour grade (2 vs 3) and origin (pancreas vs other). Tumour assessments were done at baseline, week 16, and week 24, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded, independent, central radiology assessment. We did the primary analysis at 101 progression-free survival events as the final progression-free survival analysis. NETTER-2 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03972488, and is active and not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2020, and Oct 13, 2022, we screened 261 patients, 35 (13%) of whom were excluded. We randomly assigned 226 (87%) patients (121 [54%] male and 105 [46%] female) to the 177Lu-Dotatate group (n=151 [67%]) and control group (n=75 [33%]). Median progression-free survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·7-13·8) in the control group and 22·8 months (19·4-not estimated) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group (stratified hazard ratio 0·276 [0·182-0·418]; p<0·0001). During the treatment period, adverse events (of any grade) occurred in 136 (93%) of 147 treated patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 69 (95%) of 73 treated patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths during the treatment period. INTERPRETATION: First-line 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR significantly extended median progression-free survival (by 14 months) in patients with grade 2 or 3 advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 177Lu-Dotatate should be considered a new standard of care in first-line therapy in this population. FUNDING: Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company.

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) display peculiar site-specific features among all NENs. Their incidence and prevalence have been rising in the past few decades. gNENs comprise gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas (gNECs) and gastric neuroendocrine tumours (gNETs), the latter further classified into three types. Type I anatype II gNETs are gastrin-dependent and develop in chronic atrophic gastritis and as part of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome within a multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome (MEN1), respectively. Type III or sporadic gNETs develop in the absence of hypergastrinaemia and in the context of a near-normal or inflamed gastric mucosa. gNECs can also develop in the context of variable atrophic, relatively normal or inflamed gastric mucosa. Each gNEN type has different clinical characteristics and requires a different multidisciplinary approach in expert dedicated centres. Type I gNETs are managed mainly by endoscopy or surgery, whereas the treatment of type II gNETs largely depends on the management of the concomitant MEN1. Type III gNETs may require both locoregional approaches and systemic treatments; NECs are often metastatic and therefore require systemic treatment. Specific data regarding the systemic treatment of gNENs are lacking and are derived from the treatment of intestinal NETs and NECs. An enhanced understanding of molecular and clinical pathophysiology is needed to improve the management and outcomes of patients' gNETs.

Combined Lanreotide Autogel and Temozolomide Treatment of Progressive Pancreatic and Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors: The Phase II SONNET Study.

BACKGROUND: In advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NET), antiproliferative treatment options beyond somatostatin analogs remain limited. Temozolomide (TMZ) has shown efficacy in NET alone or combined with other drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SONNET (NCT02231762) was an open, multicenter, prospective, phase II study to evaluate lanreotide autogel 120 mg (LAN) plus TMZ in patients with progressive advanced/metastatic grade 1/2 gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) NET or of unknown primary. Patients could be enrolled at first-line or higher therapy line. The primary endpoint was disease control rate ([DCR], rate of stable disease [SD], partial [PR], and complete response [CR]) at 6 months of LAN and TMZ. Patients with nonfunctioning (NF) NET without progression at 6 months were randomized to 6-month LAN maintenance or watch and wait, patients with functioning (F)-NET with clinical benefit (PR, SD) continued on LAN. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were recruited. The majority of patients received the study drug at second or higher treatment line and had an NET G2. DCR at 6 months LAN and TMZ was 73.5%. After 6 months of further LAN maintenance, 54.5% of patients with F-NET and 71.4% with NF-NET had SD or PR vs 41.7% with NF-NET on observation only. LAN and TMZ were effective in all subgroups analyzed. At 12 months of follow-up, median progression-free survival was 11.1 months. Median serum chromogranin A decreased except in NF-NET on observation. O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation appeared to better reflect TMZ response than loss of gene expression. During combination therapy, the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events grade 3/4 reported were nausea (14%), thrombocytopenia (12.3%), and neutropenia (8.8%). Four deaths were reported resulting from severe adverse events not considered related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: LAN plus TMZ is a treatment option for patients with progressive GEP-NET with more aggressive biological profile showing a manageable safety profile.

Use and perceived utility of [18 F]FDG PET/CT in neuroendocrine neoplasms: A consensus report from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Advisory Board Meeting 2022.

Somatostatin receptor (SST) PET/CT is the gold standard for well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (NET) imaging. Higher grades of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) show preferential [18F]FDG (FDG) uptake, and even low-grade NET may de-differentiate over time. FDG PET/CT's prognostic role is widely accepted; however, its impact on clinical decision-making remains controversial and its use varies widely. A questionnaire-based survey on FDG PET/CT use and perceived decision-making utility in NEN was submitted to the ENETS Advisory Board Meeting attendees (November 2022, response rate = 70%). In 3/15 statements, agreement was higher than 75%: (i) FDG was considered useful in NET, irrespective of grade, in case of mis-matched lesions (detectable on diagnostic CT but negative/faintly positive on SST PET/CT), especially if PRRT is contemplated (80%); (ii) in NET G3 if curative surgery is considered (82%); and (iii) in NEC prior to surgery with curative intent (98%). FDG use in NET G3, even in the presence of matched lesions, as a baseline for response assessment was favoured by 74%. Four statements obtained more than 60% consensus: (i) FDG use in NET G3 if locoregional therapy is considered (65%); (ii) in neuroendocrine carcinoma before initiating active therapy as a baseline for response assessment (61%); (iii) biopsy to re-assess tumour grade prior to a change in therapeutic management (68%) upon detection of FDG-positivity on the background of a prior G1-2 NET; (iv) 67% were in favour to reconsider PRRT to treat residual SST-positive lesions after achieving complete remission on FDG of the SST-negative disease component. Multidisciplinary opinion broadly supports the use of FDG PET/CT for characterisation of disease biology and to guide treatment selection across a range of indications, despite the lack of full consensus in many situations. This may reflect existing clinical access due to lack of reimbursement or experience with this investigation, which should be addressed by further research.

Determinants Affecting the Clinical Implementation of a Molecularly Informed Molecular Tumor Board Recommendation: Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) converge state-of-the-art next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods with the expertise of an interdisciplinary team consisting of clinicians, pathologists, human geneticists, and molecular biologists to provide molecularly informed guidance in clinical decision making to the treating physician. In the present study, we particularly focused on elucidating the factors impacting on the clinical translation of MTB recommendations, utilizing data generated from gene panel mediated comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 554 patients at the MTB of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen, Germany, during the years 2016 to 2020. A subgroup analysis of cases with available follow-up data (n = 332) revealed 139 cases with a molecularly informed MTB recommendation, which was successfully implemented in the clinic in 44 (31.7%) of these cases. Here, the molecularly matched treatment was applied in 45.4% (n = 20/44) of cases for ≥6 months and in 25% (n = 11/44) of cases for 12 months or longer (median time to treatment failure, TTF: 5 months, min: 1 month, max: 38 months, ongoing at data cut-off). In general, recommendations were preferentially implemented in the clinic when of high (i.e., tier 1) clinical evidence level. In particular, this was the case for MTB recommendations suggesting the application of PARP, PIK3CA, and IDH1/2 inhibitors. The main reason for non-compliance to the MTB recommendation was either the application of non-matched treatment modalities (n = 30)/stable disease (n = 7), or deteriorating patient condition (n = 22)/death of patient (n = 9). In summary, this study provides an insight into the factors affecting the clinical implementation of molecularly informed MTB recommendations, and careful considerations of these factors may guide future processes of clinical decision making.