
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.