Somatostatin-based radiopeptide therapy with [177Lu-DOTA]-TOC versus [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in neuroendocrine tumours

A Romer, D Seiler, N Marincek, P Brunner, M T Koller, Q K T Ng, H R Maecke, J Müller-Brand, C Rochlitz, M Briel, C Schindler, M A Walter, A Romer, D Seiler, N Marincek, P Brunner, M T Koller, Q K T Ng, H R Maecke, J Müller-Brand, C Rochlitz, M Briel, C Schindler, M A Walter

Abstract

Purpose: Somatostatin-based radiopeptide treatment is generally performed using the β-emitting radionuclides (90)Y or (177)Lu. The present study aimed at comparing benefits and harms of both therapeutic approaches.

Methods: In a comparative cohort study, patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours underwent repeated cycles of [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC or [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC until progression of disease or permanent adverse events. Multivariable Cox regression and competing risks regression were employed to examine predictors of survival and adverse events for both treatment groups.

Results: Overall, 910 patients underwent 1,804 cycles of [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC and 141 patients underwent 259 cycles of [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC. The median survival after [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC and after [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC was comparable (45.5 months versus 35.9 months, hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.30, p = 0.49). Subgroup analyses revealed a significantly longer survival for [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC over [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC in patients with low tumour uptake, solitary lesions and extra-hepatic lesions. The rate of severe transient haematotoxicities was lower after [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC treatment (1.4 vs 10.1%, p = 0.001), while the rate of severe permanent renal toxicities was similar in both treatment groups (9.2 vs 7.8%, p = 0.32).

Conclusion: The present results revealed no difference in median overall survival after [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC and [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC. Furthermore, [(177)Lu-DOTA]-TOC was less haematotoxic than [(90)Y-DOTA]-TOC.

References

    1. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Nov;26(11):1439-47
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr 1;30(10):1100-6
    1. J Transl Med. 2013 Jan 15;11:17
    1. J Nucl Med. 2005 Jan;46 Suppl 1:13S-7S
    1. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997 Jul;24(7):792-5
    1. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Nov 15;13(22 Pt 1):6696-702
    1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Jul;38(7):1270-80
    1. N Engl J Med. 1994 Mar 31;330(13):877-84
    1. BMJ. 2010 Mar 30;340:c117
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4656-63
    1. N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 10;364(6):501-13
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 20;26(18):3063-72
    1. Ann Oncol. 2001 Jul;12(7):941-5
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2124-30
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2416-23
    1. J Nucl Med. 1994 Jan;35(1):152-6
    1. N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 10;364(6):514-23
    1. Cancer. 2009 May 15;115(10):2052-62
    1. Lancet. 1989 Feb 4;1(8632):242-4
    1. Ann Oncol. 2001;12 Suppl 2:S111-4
    1. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010 Apr;6(4):188-9
    1. Endocr Rev. 2003 Aug;24(4):389-427
    1. Stat Med. 2007 May 20;26(11):2389-430
    1. Lancet. 1998 Feb 7;351(9100):417-8
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel