Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul;6(7):1493-1499.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.1028. Epub 2017 May 25.

Prognostic Impact of the Cumulative Dose and Dose Intensity of Everolimus in Patients With Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Prognostic Impact of the Cumulative Dose and Dose Intensity of Everolimus in Patients With Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Rossana Berardi et al. Cancer Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

The aim of this work is to assess if cumulative dose (CD) and dose intensity (DI) of everolimus may affect survival of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) patients. One hundred and sixteen patients (62 males and 54 females, median age 55 years) with advanced PNETs were treated with everolimus for ≥3 months. According to a Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, patients were stratified into two groups, with CD ≤ 3000 mg (Group A; n = 68) and CD > 3000 mg (Group B; n = 48). The response rate and toxicity were comparable in the two groups. However, patients in group A experienced more dose modifications than patients in group B. Median OS was 24 months in Group A while in Group B it was not reached (HR: 26.9; 95% CI: 11.0-76.7; P < 0.0001). Patients who maintained a DI higher than 9 mg/day experienced a significantly longer OS and experienced a trend to higher response rate. Overall, our study results showed that both CD and DI of everolimus play a prognostic role for patients with advanced PNETs treated with everolimus. This should prompt efforts to continue everolimus administration in responsive patients up to at least 3000 mg despite delays or temporary interruptions.

Keywords: Everolimus; mTOR inhibitor; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors; targeted therapy.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristics analysis based on everolimus cumulative dose (CD) with death as end point. In this model, sensitivity was 78.6% (95% CI: 59.0–91.7) and specificity was 46.6% (95% CI: 35.9–57.5). AUC was 0.642; P = 0.0124.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall survival stratified by the everolimus cumulative dose (CD): formula image ≤3000 mg (Group A) and formula image >3000 mg (Group B).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Progression‐free survival stratified by the everolimus cumulative dose (CD): formula image ≤3000 mg (Group A) and formula image >3000 mg (Group B).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 articles

References

    1. Yao J. C., Hassan M., Phan A., Dagohoy C., Leary C., Mares J. E., et al. 2008. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J. Clin. Oncol. 26:3063–3072. - PubMed
    1. Hassan M., Phan A., Li D., Dagohoy C. G., Leary C., and Yao J. C.. 2008. Risk factors associated with neuroendocrine tumors: a US‐based case control study. Int. J. Cancer 123:867–873. - PubMed
    1. Falconi M., Bartsch D. K., Eriksson B., Klöppel G., Lopes J. M., O'Connor J. M., et al. 2012. Barcelona consensus conference partecipants: ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms of the digestive system: well‐differentiated pancreatic non‐functioning tumors. Neuroendocrinology 95:120–134. - PubMed
    1. Díez M., Teulé A., and Salazar R.. 2013. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: diagnosis and treatment. Ann. Gastroenterol. 26:29–36. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kulke M. H., Siu L. L., Tepper J. E., Fisher G., Jaffe D., Haller D. G., et al. 2011. Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute Neuroendocrine Tumor clinical trials planning meeting. J. Clin. Oncol. 29:934–943. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback