Computing the Cost of Care per Patient per Day for Patients With Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

PURPOSE: Patients with well-differentiated, low-grade metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) usually have a long median survival and require complex, expensive care over many years at multidisciplinary centers. The cost burden for patients and institutions serves as a barrier to care. Understanding the drivers of these costs and whether intense monitoring adds value will help to optimize value-based care. METHODS: We adapted the cost of care per patient per day (CCPD) validated methodology to measure cost while accounting for varying follow-up duration. We queried the Stanford NEN Database, which aggregates data from the electronic health record and other electronic sources, to study patients with metastatic NENs receiving regular care at Stanford. Current Procedural Terminology codes for services incurred during the monitoring period for each patient were mapped to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients between 2010 and 2017 were studied with a mean CCPD of $119.11 in US dollars (USD); NEN-specific systemic therapy made up 55% of this cost. Somatostatin analogs were the costliest systemic therapy. Systemic therapy was the driver of cost differences among patients with various primary tumor types, stage of disease, tumor differentiation and grade, and functional hormone status. Patients in the most expensive CCPD group did not have a significant survival benefit (P = .66). CONCLUSION: The CCPD methodology was effective in studying cancer care value in NENs. Systemic therapy, specifically somatostatin analogs, was the primary driver of cost, and intense monitoring and higher-cost care did not improve survival outcomes.

Systemic Therapy for Tumor Control in Metastatic Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

The room where it happens: addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion in National Clinical Trials Network clinical trial leadership.

Many multicenter randomized clinical trials in oncology are conducted through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), an organization consisting of 5 cooperative groups. These groups are made up of multidisciplinary investigators who work collaboratively to conduct trials that test novel therapies and establish best practice for cancer care. Unfortunately, disparities in clinical trial leadership are evident. To examine the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion across the NCTN, an independent NCTN Task Force for Diversity in Gastrointestinal Oncology was established in 2021, the efforts of which serve as the platform for this commentary. The task force sought to assess existing data on demographics and policies across NCTN groups. Differences in infrastructure and policies were identified across groups as well as a general lack of data regarding the composition of group membership and leadership. In the context of growing momentum around diversity, equity, and inclusion in cancer research, the National Cancer Institute established the Equity and Inclusion Program, which is working to establish benchmark data regarding diversity of representation within the NCTN groups. Pending these data, additional efforts are recommended to address diversity within the NCTN, including standardizing membership, leadership, and publication processes; ensuring diversity of representation across scientific and steering committees; and providing mentorship and training opportunities for women and individuals from underrepresented groups. Intentional and focused efforts are necessary to ensure diversity in clinical trial leadership and to encourage design of trials that are inclusive and representative of the broad population of patients with cancer in the United States.

The Value and Process of Inclusion: Using Sensitive, Respectful, and Inclusive Language and Images in NCCN Content.

A core component of NCCN's mission is to improve and facilitate equitable cancer care. Inclusion and representation of diverse populations are essential toward this goal of equity. Within NCCN's professional content, inclusivity increases the likelihood that clinicians are prepared to provide optimal oncology care to all patients; within NCCN's patient-facing content, it helps ensure that cancer information is relevant and accessible for all individuals. This article describes changes that have been made in the language and images used in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) and the NCCN Guidelines for Patients to promote justice, respect, and inclusion for all patients with cancer. The goals are to use language that is person-first, nonstigmatizing, inclusive of individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-misogynist, anti-ageist, anti-ableist, and anti-fat-biased. NCCN also seeks to incorporate multifaceted diversity in images and illustrations. NCCN is committed to continued and expanding efforts to ensure its publications are inclusive, respectful, and trustworthy, and that they advance just, equitable, high-quality, and effective cancer care for all.

Consensus report of the 2021 National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting.

Important progress has been made over the last decade in the classification, imaging, and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NENs), with several new agents approved for use. Although the treatment options available for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have greatly expanded, the rapidly changing landscape has presented several unanswered questions about how best to optimize, sequence, and individualize therapy. Perhaps the most important development over the last decade has been the approval of 177Lu-DOTATATE for treatment of gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, raising questions around optimal sequencing of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) relative to other therapeutic options, the role of re-treatment with PRRT, and whether PRRT can be further optimized through use of dosimetry among other approaches. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trial planning meeting in 2021 with multidisciplinary experts from academia, the federal government, industry, and patient advocates to develop NET clinical trials in the era of PRRT. Key clinical trial recommendations for development included 1) PRRT re-treatment, 2) PRRT and immunotherapy combinations, 3) PRRT and DNA damage repair inhibitor combinations, 4) treatment for liver-dominant disease, 5) treatment for PRRT-resistant disease, and 6) dosimetry-modified PRRT.

A 46-Year-Old Woman With Chronic Dyspnea and Diarrhea.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 46-year-old previously healthy woman presented with dyspnea, fatigue, and diarrhea. She had been experiencing these symptoms for > 1 year, but they had worsened in the few weeks prior to presentation. She had become progressively dyspneic on exertion and at rest and had increased the number of pillows she was sleeping on at night. She reported having episodes of nonbloody, watery diarrhea five to six times a day. The episodes were not associated with abdominal pain or recent travel and occurred even with fasting. Review of systems was positive for intermittent hot flashes, heart palpitations, and myalgias. She was premenopausal. She denied fever, weight loss, cough, hemoptysis, chest pain, or new edema. She had a pertinent medical history of gastritis, a nonspecific murmur since childhood, current tobacco use with a five pack-year history, and a family history of non-first-degree relatives having lung, breast, and colon cancer. She had not received medical care since moving from Brazil to the United States 4 years earlier.

Randomized Study of Temozolomide or Temozolomide and Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (ECOG-ACRIN E2211).

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have few treatment options that yield objective responses. Retrospective and small prospective studies suggest that capecitabine and temozolomide are associated with high response rates (RRs) and long progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: E2211 was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial comparing temozolomide versus capecitabine/temozolomide in patients with advanced low-grade or intermediate-grade pancreatic NETs. Key eligibility criteria included progression within the preceding 12 months and no prior temozolomide, dimethyl-triazeno-imidazole-carboxamide or dacarbazine, capecitabine or fluorouracil. The primary end point was PFS; secondary endpoints were overall survival, RR, safety, and methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) by immunohistochemistry and promoter methylation. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were enrolled between April 2013 and March 2016 to temozolomide (n = 72) or capecitabine and temozolomide (n = 72); the primary analysis population included 133 eligible patients. At the scheduled interim analysis in January 2018, the median PFS was 14.4 months for temozolomide versus 22.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.58), which was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis for the primary end point (stratified log-rank P = .022). In the final analysis (May 2021), the median overall survival was 53.8 months for temozolomide and 58.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.82, P = .42). MGMT deficiency was associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine/temozolomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared with temozolomide alone in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. The median PFS and RR observed with capecitabine/temozolomide are the highest reported in a randomized study for pancreatic NETs. MGMT deficiency was associated with response, and although routine MGMT testing is not recommended, it can be considered for select patients in need of objective response (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01824875).

PRESTO 2: An International Survey to Evaluate Patients' Injection Experiences with the Latest Devices/Formulations of Long-Acting Somatostatin Analog Therapies for Neuroendocrine Tumors or Acromegaly.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data evaluating patients' injection experiences using the latest devices/formulations of the long-acting (LA) somatostatin analogs (SSAs) lanreotide Autogel/Depot (LAN; Somatuline®) and octreotide LA release (OCT; Sandostatin®) are limited. METHODS: PRESTO 2 was a 2020/2021 e-survey comparing injection experience of adults with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) or acromegaly treated with LAN prefilled syringe versus OCT syringe for > 3 months in Canada, Ireland, the UK and the USA (planned sample size, 304). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: the proportion of patients with injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after their most recent injection, analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Secondary endpoints included interference with daily life due to injection-site pain and technical injection problems in patients with current SSA use for ≥ 6 months. RESULTS: There were 304 respondents (acromegaly, n = 85; NETs, n = 219; LAN, n = 168; OCT, n = 136; 69.2% female; mean age, 59.6 years). Fewer patients had injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after the most recent injection with LAN (6.0%) than OCT (22.8%); the odds of pain lasting > 2 days were significantly lower for LAN than OCT, adjusted for disease subgroup and occurrence of injection-site reactions (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.13 [0.06-0.30]; p < 0.0001). Injection-site pain interfered with daily life "a little bit" or "quite a bit" in 37.2% and 3.8% (LAN) versus 52.5% and 7.5% (OCT) of patients, respectively. Among patients with ≥ 6 months' experience with current SSA (92.4% of patients), technical injection problems never occurred in 76.8% (LAN) and 42.9% (OCT) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OCT, significantly fewer patients using LAN had injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after their most recent injection. Also, fewer LAN-treated patients experienced technical problems during injection. These findings demonstrate the importance of injection modality for overall LA SSA injection experience for patients with acromegaly or NETs.

Patients with neuroendocrine tumors or acromegaly often receive long-term monthly treatment with somatostatin analogs. These injectable drugs stop the body from making an excess of certain hormones. Understanding patients' experiences of these injections helps to provide better care. The PRESTO 2 online study surveyed 304 patients in Canada, Ireland, the UK and the USA with neuroendocrine tumors or acromegaly who were being treated with a somatostatin analog, either lanreotide Autogel/Depot (LAN) or octreotide long-acting release (OCT). The survey asked about injection experience, including injection-site pain lasting > 2 days and how it affected patients' lives, anxiety before injections and technical problems during injections (like syringe blockages). The survey showed fewer patients receiving LAN than OCT had injection-site pain that lasted > 2 days, and fewer said that the pain interfered with their daily lives. There were fewer technical injection problems with LAN than with OCT. However, more patients receiving LAN than OCT felt anxious before their injection. In some countries (including Canada, Ireland and the UK, but not the USA), the patient (or family member/friend) can inject LAN if they are on a stable dose, their doctor agrees, and they received training. A nurse/doctor must inject OCT. In PRESTO 2, about 40% of non-US patients who were eligible injected themselves (or were helped by a family member/friend). This may explain why more patients reported anxiety in the LAN group. PRESTO 2 provides important insights into patients' experiences of receiving somatostatin analogs and helps identify areas for improving patient care.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

A phase II study of sapanisertib (TAK-228) a mTORC1/2 inhibitor in rapalog-resistant advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET): ECOG-ACRIN EA2161.

This was a two-stage phase II trial of a mTORC1/2 inhibitor (mTORC: mammalian target of rapamycin complex) Sapanisertib (TAK228) in patients with rapalog-resistant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) (NCT02893930). Approved rapalogs such as everolimus inhibit mTORC1 and have limited clinical activity, possibly due to compensatory feedback loops. Sapanisertib addresses the potential for incomplete inhibition of the mTOR pathway through targeting of both mTORC1 and mTORC2, and thus to reverse resistance to earlier rapamycin analogues. In stage 1, patients received sapanisertib 3 mg by mouth once daily on a continuous dosing schedule in 28-day cycle. This trial adopted a two-stage design with the primary objective of evaluating objective tumor response. The first stage would recruit 13 patients in order to accrue 12 eligible and treated patients. If among the 12 eligible patients at least 1 patient had an objective response to therapy, the study would move to the second stage of accrual where 25 eligible and treated patients would be enrolled. This study activated on February 1, 2017, the required pre-determined number of patients (n = 13) had entered by November 5, 2018 for the first stage response evaluation. The accrual of this trial was formally terminated on December 27, 2019 as no response had been observed after the first stage accrual. Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were reported in eight (61%) patients with hyperglycemia being the most frequent, in three patients (23%). Other toxicities noted in the trial included fatigue, rash diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. The median PFS was 5.19 months (95% CI [3.84, 9.30]) and the median OS was 20.44 months (95% CI [5.65, 22.54]). Due to the lack of responses in Stage 1 of the study, the study did not proceed to stage 2. Thus the potential to reverse resistance was not evident.

Exploratory genomic analysis of high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms across diverse primary sites.

High-grade (grade 3) neuroendocrine neoplasms (G3 NENs) have poor survival outcomes. From a clinical standpoint, G3 NENs are usually grouped regardless of primary site and treated similarly. Little is known regarding the underlying genomics of these rare tumors, especially when compared across different primary sites. We performed whole transcriptome (n = 46), whole exome (n = 40), and gene copy number (n = 43) sequencing on G3 NEN formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from diverse organs (in total, 17 were lung, 16 were gastroenteropancreatic, and 13 other). G3 NENs despite arising from diverse primary sites did not have gene expression profiles that were easily segregated by organ of origin. Across all G3 NENs, TP53, APC, RB1, and CDKN2A were significantly mutated. The CDK4/6 cell cycling pathway was mutated in 95% of cases, with upregulation of oncogenes within this pathway. G3 NENs had high tumor mutation burden (mean 7.09 mutations/MB), with 20% having >10 mutations/MB. Two somatic copy number alterations were significantly associated with worse prognosis across tissue types: focal deletion 22q13.31 (HR, 7.82; P = 0.034) and arm amplification 19q (HR, 4.82; P = 0.032). This study is among the most diverse genomic study of high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms. We uncovered genomic features previously unrecognized for this rapidly fatal and rare cancer type that could have potential prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Microangiopathic Hemolytic Anemia Is a Late and Fatal Complication of Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome that has been reported in patients with gastric signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC). Clinical and prognostic features of MAHA in this setting have been poorly described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in 8 databases of gastric SRCC complicated by MAHA and performed a case-control study assessing factors associated with survival in patients with gastric SRCC and MAHA in our pooled cohort compared with age-, sex-, and stage-matched cases of gastric SRCC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Descriptive analyses were performed and multivariable Cox-proportional hazards regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with overall survival. RESULTS: All identified patients (n = 47) were symptomatic at index presentation, commonly with back/bone pain, and dyspnea. Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia was the first manifestation of gastric SRCC in 94% of patients. Laboratory studies were notable for anemia (median 7.7 g/dL), thrombocytopenia (median 45.5 × 103/µL), and hyperbilirubinemia (median 2.3 mg/dL). All patients with MAHA had metastatic disease at presentation, most often to the bone, bone marrow, and lymph nodes. Median survival in patients with gastric SRCC and MAHA was significantly shorter than a matched SEER-derived cohort with metastatic gastric SRCC (7 weeks vs 28 weeks, P < .01). In multivariate analysis, patients with MAHA were at significantly increased risk of mortality (HR 3.28, 95% CI 2.11-5.12). CONCLUSION: Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia is a rare, late-stage complication of metastatic gastric SRCC and is associated with significantly decreased survival compared with metastatic gastric SRCC alone.

Everolimus with or without bevacizumab in advanced pNET: CALGB 80701 (Alliance).

Treatment with the MTOR inhibitor everolimus improves progression-free survival (PFS) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), but it is not known if the addition of a VEGF pathway inhibitor to an MTOR inhibitor enhances antitumor activity. We performed a randomized phase II study evaluating everolimus with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced pNETs. One hundred and fifty patients were randomized to receive everolimus 10 mg daily with or without bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks. Patients also received standard dose of octreotide in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS, based on local investigator review. Treatment with the combination of everolimus and bevacizumab resulted in improved progression-free survival compared to everolimus (16.7 months compared to 14.0 months; one-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.1028; hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.13)), meeting the predefined primary endpoint. Confirmed tumor responses were observed in 31% (95% CI 20%, 41%) of patients receiving combination therapy, as compared to only 12% (95% CI 5%, 19%) of patients receiving treatment with everolimus (P = 0.0053). Median overall survival duration was similar in the everolimus and combination arm (42.5 and 42.1 months, respectively). Treatment-related toxicities were more common in the combination arm. In summary, treatment with everolimus and bevacizumab led to superior PFS and higher response rates compared to everolimus in patients with advanced pNETs. Although the higher rate of treatment-related adverse events may limit the use of this combination, our results support the continued evaluation of VEGF pathway inhibitors in pNETs.

Making Sense of a Complex Disease: A Practical Approach to Managing Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a heterogeneous clinical entity with a broad range of grade, pace of disease, functional status, and primary sites. Pathologic classification, diagnostic modalities, and therapeutic options for NETs have evolved considerably in the past decade. In part driven by these advances, incidence and prevalence of NETs are rising in the United States and the practicing oncologist is likely to encounter these in the clinic. However, there are no clear lines of therapy for unresectable or metastatic NETs, and sequencing of systemic therapies depends on consideration of patient and tumor characteristics including extent of disease, grade, pace of growth, functional status, primary site, somatostatin receptor status, performance status, and comorbidities. Familiarity with ongoing clinical trials will guide therapeutic decision making as well. In this review, we seek to provide a framework to formulate and tailor an individualized treatment plan for each patient with a NET.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high­dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the phase 3 NETTER-1 trial showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone in patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumours. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of overall survival and long-term safety results. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial enrolled patients from 41 sites in eight countries across Europe and the USA. Patients were 18 years and older with locally advanced or metastatic, well differentiated, somatostatin receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumours (Karnofsky performance status score ≥60) and disease progression on fixed-dose long-acting octreotide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web-based response system to intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks (four cycles) plus intramuscular long-acting octreotide 30 mg (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose long-acting octreotide 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been previously reported; here, we report the key secondary endpoint of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Final overall survival analysis was prespecified to occur either after 158 deaths or 5 years after the last patient was randomised, whichever occurred first. During long-term follow-up, adverse events of special interest were reported in the 177Lu-Dotatate group only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01578239. FINDINGS: From Sept 6, 2012, to Jan 14, 2016, 231 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned for treatment. The prespecified final analysis occurred 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned (when 142 deaths had occurred); median follow-up was 76·3 months (range 0·4-95·0) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 76·5 months (0·1-92·3) in the control group. The secondary endpoint of overall survival was not met: median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 37·4-55·2) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 36·3 months (25·9-51·7) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·60-1·17]; two-sided p=0·30). During long-term follow-up, treatment-related serious adverse events of grade 3 or worse were recorded in three (3%) of 111 patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group, but no new treatment-related serious adverse events were reported after the safety analysis cutoff. Two (2%) of 111 patients given 177Lu-Dotatate developed myelodysplastic syndrome, one of whom died 33 months after randomisation (this person was the only the only reported 177Lu-Dotatate treatment-related death). No new cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported during long-term follow-up. INTERPRETATION: 177Lu-Dotatate treatment did not significantly improve median overall survival versus high-dose long-acting octreotide. Despite final overall survival not reaching statistical significance, the 11·7 month difference in median overall survival with 177Lu-Dotatate treatment versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone might be considered clinically relevant. No new safety signals were reported during long-term follow-up. FUNDING: Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis company.