4.3 Article

Platinum-Based Treatment for Well- and Poorly Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 138-146

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001740

关键词

pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor; PanNEC; PanNET; platinum-based treatment; poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Platinum-based therapies showed increased activity in PanNEC, yet promising efficacy was also observed in PanNETs, regardless of tumor grade.
Objectives Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms include well-differentiated tumors (PanNETs) and poorly differentiated carcinomas (PanNECs). Previous reports suggested a role for platinum-based therapy largely in PanNEC. We sought to investigate the role of platinum-based therapy in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms regardless of tumor grade and differentiation. Methods Patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms treated with platinum-based therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering (1994-2016) and Verona University Hospital (2008-2016) were retrospectively identified. Response to treatment by RECIST v1.1, overall survival, and progression-free survival were defined. Among patients with available tissue, DAXX, ATRX, Rb, and p53 expression was evaluated to support the histologic grade of differentiation. Results Fifty PanNETs, 29 PanNECs, and 22 high-grade tumors with undeterminable differentiation were included. No patients achieved complete response. Overall rate of partial response was 31%, 41% for PanNEC, and 20% for PanNETs. Among PanNETs, partial response was achieved in 33% of G1 (2/6), 10% of G2 (2/19), and 24% of G3 (6/25) tumors. Median overall survival was 29.3 months for PanNETs and 10.9 months for PanNEC (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival (P = 0.2). Conclusions Platinum-based therapies demonstrated increased activity in PanNEC; however, promising efficacy was also observed in PanNETs, irrespective of grade.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据