Watch and Wait Strategies in NET Patients: More than Expected
Article Information
Sebastian Krug1*, Anja Rinke2, Marianne Pavel3
1Department of Internal Medicine I, Martin-Luther University Halle/Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Strasse 40, D 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany
2Department of Gastroenterology and Endocrinology, University Hospital Marburg, Baldinger Strasse, D 35043 Marburg, Germany
3Department of Medicine 1, Division of Endocrinology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
*Corresponding Author: Prof. Dr. med. Sebastian Krug, Department of Internal Medicine I, Martin-Luther University Halle/Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Strasse 40, D 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany
Received: 23 June 2022; Accepted: 04 July 2022; Published: 21 July 2022
Citation:
Sebastian Krug, Anja Rinke, Marianne Pavel. Watch and Wait Strategies in NET Patients: More than Expected. Archives of Clinical and Medical Case Reports 6 (2022): 534-536.
View / Download Pdf Share at FacebookKeywords
NET; Survey; Watch-and-wait; Germany
NET articles; Survey articles; Watch-and-wait articles; Germany articles
Survey articles Survey Research articles Survey review articles Survey PubMed articles Survey PubMed Central articles Survey 2023 articles Survey 2024 articles Survey Scopus articles Survey impact factor journals Survey Scopus journals Survey PubMed journals Survey medical journals Survey free journals Survey best journals Survey top journals Survey free medical journals Survey famous journals Survey Google Scholar indexed journals COVID-19 articles COVID-19 Research articles COVID-19 review articles COVID-19 PubMed articles COVID-19 PubMed Central articles COVID-19 2023 articles COVID-19 2024 articles COVID-19 Scopus articles COVID-19 impact factor journals COVID-19 Scopus journals COVID-19 PubMed journals COVID-19 medical journals COVID-19 free journals COVID-19 best journals COVID-19 top journals COVID-19 free medical journals COVID-19 famous journals COVID-19 Google Scholar indexed journals NET articles NET Research articles NET review articles NET PubMed articles NET PubMed Central articles NET 2023 articles NET 2024 articles NET Scopus articles NET impact factor journals NET Scopus journals NET PubMed journals NET medical journals NET free journals NET best journals NET top journals NET free medical journals NET famous journals NET Google Scholar indexed journals tumors articles tumors Research articles tumors review articles tumors PubMed articles tumors PubMed Central articles tumors 2023 articles tumors 2024 articles tumors Scopus articles tumors impact factor journals tumors Scopus journals tumors PubMed journals tumors medical journals tumors free journals tumors best journals tumors top journals tumors free medical journals tumors famous journals tumors Google Scholar indexed journals BRAF V600E articles BRAF V600E Research articles BRAF V600E review articles BRAF V600E PubMed articles BRAF V600E PubMed Central articles BRAF V600E 2023 articles BRAF V600E 2024 articles BRAF V600E Scopus articles BRAF V600E impact factor journals BRAF V600E Scopus journals BRAF V600E PubMed journals BRAF V600E medical journals BRAF V600E free journals BRAF V600E best journals BRAF V600E top journals BRAF V600E free medical journals BRAF V600E famous journals BRAF V600E Google Scholar indexed journals treatment articles treatment Research articles treatment review articles treatment PubMed articles treatment PubMed Central articles treatment 2023 articles treatment 2024 articles treatment Scopus articles treatment impact factor journals treatment Scopus journals treatment PubMed journals treatment medical journals treatment free journals treatment best journals treatment top journals treatment free medical journals treatment famous journals treatment Google Scholar indexed journals CT articles CT Research articles CT review articles CT PubMed articles CT PubMed Central articles CT 2023 articles CT 2024 articles CT Scopus articles CT impact factor journals CT Scopus journals CT PubMed journals CT medical journals CT free journals CT best journals CT top journals CT free medical journals CT famous journals CT Google Scholar indexed journals Liver Trauma articles Liver Trauma Research articles Liver Trauma review articles Liver Trauma PubMed articles Liver Trauma PubMed Central articles Liver Trauma 2023 articles Liver Trauma 2024 articles Liver Trauma Scopus articles Liver Trauma impact factor journals Liver Trauma Scopus journals Liver Trauma PubMed journals Liver Trauma medical journals Liver Trauma free journals Liver Trauma best journals Liver Trauma top journals Liver Trauma free medical journals Liver Trauma famous journals Liver Trauma Google Scholar indexed journals Histology articles Histology Research articles Histology review articles Histology PubMed articles Histology PubMed Central articles Histology 2023 articles Histology 2024 articles Histology Scopus articles Histology impact factor journals Histology Scopus journals Histology PubMed journals Histology medical journals Histology free journals Histology best journals Histology top journals Histology free medical journals Histology famous journals Histology Google Scholar indexed journals AKT1 E17K mutation articles AKT1 E17K mutation Research articles AKT1 E17K mutation review articles AKT1 E17K mutation PubMed articles AKT1 E17K mutation PubMed Central articles AKT1 E17K mutation 2023 articles AKT1 E17K mutation 2024 articles AKT1 E17K mutation Scopus articles AKT1 E17K mutation impact factor journals AKT1 E17K mutation Scopus journals AKT1 E17K mutation PubMed journals AKT1 E17K mutation medical journals AKT1 E17K mutation free journals AKT1 E17K mutation best journals AKT1 E17K mutation top journals AKT1 E17K mutation free medical journals AKT1 E17K mutation famous journals AKT1 E17K mutation Google Scholar indexed journals
Article Details
Commentary
Neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP-NET) system include sporadic and hereditary diseases which have been increasing in incidence recently [1]. In patients with resectable low grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET) surgery is the mainstay of therapy. However, the majority of patients present with unresectable disease, most frequently with liver metastases. In patients with low grade NET G1 (Ki67<2%) a watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy can be recommended in patients with loco-regional lymph node metastases or in patients with liver metastases if the liver tumor burden is low. The current German and European guidelines consider the use of W&W as a safe approach in this patient population [2, 3]. However, absence of symptoms and radiological tumor progression are essential requirements, along with a well-differentiated morphology and low grade as well as limited metastasis. The clearest evidence for an W&W approach in GEP-NET derives from the CLARINET trial, where a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 18 months was achieved in the placebo group with tumor stability within 3-6 months prior to start of lanreotide [4]. Out of 103 patients in the placebo arm 60 patients experienced progression within 24 months. However, 43 patients demonstrated stable disease even after 2 years which confirms that a subgroup of patients has no need for therapy even in the long-term. Data on the current prevalence of patients with a W&W strategy are not available. In 2021, we surveyed NET patients in Germany, Austria and Switzerland to assess the medical care under the COVID-19 pandemic. The online survey (constructed by LimeSurvey software) was distributed via personal contact and by the patient organization NETZwerk NET e.V. In this process, 542 out of 684 NET patients completely answered all questions [5]. Of these, 68 (12.5%) patients indicated that they were followed by a W&W strategy. About half were between 41-60 years of age (n=36, 53.0%), 30 affected people were between 61-80 years (n=30, 44.1%). Most participants had a small bowel or pancreatic primary tumor with 25.0% (n=17) and 23.5% (n=16), respectively. 25% of the W&W group (n=17) self-reported a functional-active disease and 66.2% (n=45) displayed symptoms at the time of the survey. In most cases, the diagnosis required more than 12 months (n=30, 44.1%) and almost half of the participants have been living with the disease for more than 5 years (n=33, 48.5%). Present comorbidities were specified as follows: hypertension (44.5%, n=30), diabetes (19.1%, n=13), asthma/COPD (16.2%, n=11), chronic renal failure (13.2%, n=9), heart insufficiency (8.8%, n=6). Only one participant mentioned a chronic infection. Liver cirrhosis as comorbidity was not reported. All clinically available characteristics of the participants are listed in Table 1.
n=542 |
Therapy n=369 |
(%) 68.1 |
Surveillance n=173 |
(%) 31.9 |
W&W n=68 |
(%) 12.5 |
All |
(%) |
Age |
||||||||
18-40 |
14 |
3.8 |
8 |
4.6 |
2 |
2.9 |
22 |
4.1 |
41-60 |
169 |
45.8 |
85 |
49.1 |
36 |
53 |
254 |
46.9 |
61-80 and >80 |
186 |
50.4 |
80 |
46.3 |
30 |
44.1 |
266 |
49 |
Tumor localization |
||||||||
small bowel |
148 |
40.1 |
60 |
34.7 |
17 |
25 |
212 |
39.1 |
pancreas |
85 |
23 |
46 |
26.6 |
16 |
23.5 |
134 |
24.7 |
duodenal |
36 |
9.8 |
14 |
8.1 |
7 |
10.3 |
50 |
9.2 |
lung |
23 |
6.2 |
15 |
8.7 |
4 |
5.9 |
41 |
7.6 |
CUP |
30 |
8.1 |
9 |
5.2 |
6 |
8.8 |
42 |
7.8 |
others |
47 |
12.4 |
29 |
16.6 |
18 |
26.5 |
66 |
12.2 |
Functional active |
||||||||
yes |
159 |
43.1 |
58 |
33.5 |
17 |
25 |
217 |
40 |
no (+ unknown) |
210 |
56.9 |
115 |
66.5 |
51 |
75 |
325 |
60 |
Symptoms |
||||||||
yes |
269 |
72.9 |
104 |
60.1 |
45 |
66.2 |
373 |
68.8 |
no |
100 |
27.1 |
69 |
39.9 |
23 |
33.8 |
169 |
31.2 |
Period from symptoms to diagnosis |
||||||||
<3 months |
79 |
21.4 |
48 |
27.8 |
19 |
27.9 |
127 |
23.4 |
3-12 months |
79 |
21.4 |
44 |
25.4 |
4 |
5.9 |
123 |
22.7 |
>12 months |
147 |
39.8 |
48 |
27.8 |
30 |
44.1 |
195 |
36 |
Therapy |
||||||||
SSA |
201 |
54.5 |
201 |
54.5 |
||||
PRRT |
29 |
7.9 |
29 |
7.9 |
||||
CTx |
29 |
7.9 |
29 |
7.9 |
||||
TKI |
15 |
4.1 |
16 |
4.3 |
||||
W&W |
68 |
18.4 |
68 |
18.4 |
||||
Treatment setting |
||||||||
ENETS center |
122 |
33.1 |
56 |
32.4 |
21 |
30.9 |
178 |
32.8 |
University Hospital (none ENETS) |
136 |
36.9 |
71 |
41 |
20 |
29.4 |
207 |
38.2 |
Non-university Hospital |
49 |
13.3 |
15 |
8.7 |
10 |
14.7 |
64 |
11.8 |
Specialist practice |
62 |
16.7 |
31 |
17.9 |
17 |
25 |
93 |
17.2 |
Duration of disease: 6, 8.8%, 29, 42.6%; 33, 48.5% (<12m, 12m-5y, >5y)
Table 1: Clinical characteristics of ‘watch and wait’ participants.
Our analysis demonstrates that the W&W strategy is frequently realized. However, there are no structured data on this approach in German or European NET registries or other databases [6, 7]. In general, a less frequent use of the W&W strategy was assumed, as therapeutic options have constantly evolved over the last 10 years. In earlier randomized phase III trials such as PROMID or CLARINET somatostatin analogues (SSA) were compared with placebo therapy. A similar approach was chosen for the RADIANT-3 and -4 studies, although here everolimus was investigated against placebo therapy [4, 8-10]. Except in the CLARINET trial, median PFS in the placebo arm was very low (6 months or less). However, the included patient populations were very heterogeneous, particular concerning tumor biology and disease manifestation, partly already pre-treated and therefore not comparable. Therefore, in the current ongoing trials different established treatment options are being evaluated. Especially since somatostatin analogues (SSA) are considered to have few side effects and to be safe, SSA are often used immediately after diagnosis. As already mentioned, a W&W procedure is appropriate in patients with defined criteria of a slowly growing disease, preferentially after initial diagnosis. But how can we assess tumor biology and tumor growth accurately after diagnosis? Post-hoc analyses of the CLARINET trial investigated the tumor growth rate (TGR), as independent marker associated with the progression-free survival (PFS) [11]. The TGR measures the continuous changes of tumor size longitudinally and thus may reflect the tumor kinetics more precisely. In the pre-treatment period of the CLARINET trial the TGR was 2.7% per month in the placebo arm and the growth dynamic did not change within the observational period of 96 weeks. In practice, two imagings are mandatory to calculate the TGR correctly. In order to determine whether the W&W strategy is an appropriate treatment option, the first control imaging should be performed after 3-6 months. Overall, the TGR provides the opportunity to monitor a W&W strategy and to early predict PFS. Our observation of the W&W strategy in the survey is restricted by a number of limitations. All the participants were patients, which had to understand and recognize the difference between surveillance, drug treatment and watch-and-wait concept. No definition of W&W was provided. The survey did not distinguish between localized and metastatic stages. Therefore, the proportion of patients with e.g. gastric NET type 1 or non-functional small PanNET, where W&W is regular performed, cannot be indicated. Interestingly, some patients under W&W also reported a functional-active and symptomatic disease both representing indications for therapy. This discrepancy cannot be explained definitively.
Nevertheless, we would like to raise awareness that a W&W concept is still a valuable option for NET patients. Further scientific attention should be directed towards the clinical and molecular characterization of indolent and very slow-growing NET in order to better select patients.
References
- Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the Incidence, Prevalence, and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol 3 (2017): 1335-1342.
- Rinke A WB, Gress T, Pavel M. S2k Leitlinie Neuroendokrine Tumore. DGVS (2018).
- Pavel M, Öberg K, Falconi M, et al. EGCEa: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 31 (2020): 844-860.
- Caplin ME, Pavel M, Cwikla JB, et al. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 371 (2014): 224-233.
- Krug S, Khosravian M, Weissbach J, et al. The Patient's Point of View: COVID-19 and Neuroendocrine Tumor Disease. Cancers (Basel) 14 (2022).
- NET-Registers INaTiaD, Authors, Kollaboratoren. Neuroendocrine Neoplasia within the German NET Registry]. Z Gastroenterol 56 (2018): 1237-1246.
- Borbath I, Garcia-Carbonero R, Bikmukhametov D, et al. The European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society registry, a tool to assess the prognosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Eur J Cancer 168 (2022): 80-90.
- Rinke A, Müller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID Study Group. J Clin Oncol 27 (2009): 4656-4663.
- Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T, et al. Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 364 (2011): 514-523.
- Yao JC, Fazio N, Singh S, et al. Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet 387 (2016): 968-977.
- Dromain C, Pavel ME, Ruszniewski P, et al. Tumor growth rate as a metric of progression, response, and prognosis in pancreatic and intestinal neuroendocrine tumors. BMC Cancer 19 (2019): 66.