z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Temozolomide Alone or Combined with Capecitabine for the Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor
Author(s) -
Louis de Mestier,
Thomas Walter,
Camille Evrard,
Paul de Boissieu,
Olivia Hentic,
Jérôme Cros,
David Tougeron,
Catherine LombardBohas,
Vinciane Rebours,
Pascal Hammel,
Philippe Ruszniewski
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
neuroendocrinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.493
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1423-0194
pISSN - 0028-3835
DOI - 10.1159/000500862
Subject(s) - neuroendocrine tumors , medicine , capecitabine , gastroenterology , temozolomide , octreotide , endocrinology , somatostatin , chemotherapy , cancer , colorectal cancer
Background: The combination of capecitabine (CAP) with temozolomide (TEM) chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) relies on limited evidence. We compared TEM-CAP to TEM alone in patients with advanced PanNET. Methods: Consecutive patients with advanced PanNET treated with TEM or TEM-CAP between 2004 and 2017 in three expert centers were included. Progression-free survival (PFS), tolerance, tumor response, and overall survival were compared between the two groups. Propensity-based analyses were performed to reduce confounding bias due to the nonrandomized setting. Results: TEM and TEM-CAP were administered to 38 patients and 100 patients, respectively, with a median age of 58 years. The patients in the TEM group more often had hormonal syndromes (p = 0.03), a longer median delay to diagnosis (p = 0.001), and a higher number of pretreatment lines (p < 0.001). The performance status was 0 in 58% versus 65% of the patients, and tumor’s median Ki-67 index was 8% versus 11%, respectively. Tolerance was similar, except that there were more cases of asthenia in the TEM group (p = 0.017) and more cases of hand-foot syndrome in the TEM-CAP group (p = 0.025). The objective response rate was 34% versus 51% (p = 0.088). The raw median PFS was similar with TEM and with TEM-CAP (21.4 vs. 19.8 months, p = 0.84). Although CAP tended to decrease the risk of progression in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.65, p = 0.12), it had no effect after adjustment for the propensity score (HR 1.06, p = 0.80). Conclusions: TEM-CAP might not prolong PFS but might achieve a higher response rate than TEM alone. Hence, TEM-CAP might be preferred when tumor shrinkage is the main therapeutic objective. Otherwise, TEM might be adequate for patients with an impaired performance status or in case of extrahepatic metastases.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here