Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are heterogeneous malignancies arising from the diffuse neuroendocrine system. They frequently originate in the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) tract and the bronchopulmonary tree, and their incidence has steadily increased in the last 3 decades. Fundamental biologic and genomic differences underlie the clinical heterogeneity of NETs, and distinct molecular features characterize NETs of different grades and different primary sites. Although surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment for localized tumors, systemic treatment options for patients with metastatic NETs have expanded considerably. Somatostatin analogs have demonstrated both antisecretory and antitumor efficacy. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with lutetium‐177 dotatate (177Lu‐DOTATATE) has been approved for advanced GEP‐NETs. The antitumor activity of everolimus has been demonstrated across a wide spectrum of NETs, and the antiangiogenic agent sunitinib has been approved for pancreatic NETs (pNETs). Chemotherapy with temozolomide and capecitabine has recently demonstrated an unprecedented prolongation of progression‐free survival in a randomized trial of pNETs. Multiple retrospective series have reported the efficacy of liver‐directed therapies both for palliating symptoms of hormone excess and for controlling tumor growth. Telotristat, an oral inhibitor of tryptophan hydroxylase, has been shown to reduce diarrhea in patients with carcinoid syndrome. Defining the therapeutic algorithm and identifying biomarkers predictive of response to treatments are among the main priorities for the next decade of research in the NET field.

In this review, we detail the changes and the relevant features that are applied to neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) in the 2022 WHO Classification of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Tumors. Using a question-and-answer approach, we discuss the consolidation of the nomenclature that distinguishes neuronal paragangliomas from epithelial neoplasms, which are divided into well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The criteria for these distinctions based on differentiation are outlined. NETs are generally (but not always) graded as G1, G2, and G3 based on proliferation, whereas NECs are by definition high grade; the importance of Ki67 as a tool for classification and grading is emphasized. The clinical relevance of proper classification is explained, and the importance of hormonal function is examined, including eutopic and ectopic hormone production. The tools available to pathologists for accurate classification include the conventional biomarkers of neuroendocrine lineage and differentiation, INSM1, synaptophysin, chromogranins, and somatostatin receptors (SSTRs), but also include transcription factors that can identify the site of origin of a metastatic lesion of unknown primary site, as well as hormones, enzymes, and keratins that play a role in functional and structural correlation. The recognition of highly proliferative, well-differentiated NETs has resulted in the need for biomarkers that can distinguish these G3 NETs from NECs, including stains to determine expression of SSTRs and those that can indicate the unique molecular pathogenetic alterations that underlie the distinction, for example, global loss of RB and aberrant p53 in pancreatic NECs compared with loss of ATRX, DAXX, and menin in pancreatic NETs. Other differential diagnoses are discussed with recommendations for biomarkers that can assist in correct classification, including the distinctions between epithelial and non-epithelial NENs that have allowed reclassification of epithelial NETs in the spine, in the duodenum, and in the middle ear; the first two may be composite tumors with neuronal and glial elements, and as this feature is integral to the duodenal lesion, it is now classified as composite gangliocytoma/neuroma and neuroendocrine tumor (CoGNET). The many other aspects of differential diagnosis are detailed with recommendations for biomarkers that can distinguish NENs from non-neuroendocrine lesions that can mimic their morphology. The concepts of mixed neuroendocrine and non-neuroendocrine (MiNEN) and amphicrine tumors are clarified with information about how to approach such lesions in routine practice. Theranostic biomarkers that assist patient management are reviewed. Given the significant proportion of NENs that are associated with germline mutations that predispose to this disease, we explain the role of the pathologist in identifying precursor lesions and applying molecular immunohistochemistry to guide genetic testing.

Background Although neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, the number of patients with NET is increasing. However, in Japan, there have been no epidemiological studies on NET since 2005; thus, the prevalence of NET remains unknown. Methods We reported the epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) [pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs)] in Japan in 2005. Here, we conducted the second nationwide survey on patients with GEP-NETs who received treatment in 2010. Results A total of 3,379 patients received treatment for PNETs in 2010, representing a 1.2-fold increase in the number of patients from 2005 to 2010. The prevalence was estimated to be 2.69/100,000, with an annual onset incidence of 1.27/100,000 in 2010. Non-functioning tumor (NF)-PNETs comprised 65.5 % of cases followed by insulinoma (20.9 %) and gastrinoma (8.2 %). Interestingly, the number of patients with NF-PNETs increased ~1.8 fold since 2005. A total of 19.9 % of patients exhibited distant metastasis at initial diagnosis; 4.3 % had complications with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1), and only 4.0 % had NF-PNETs associated with MEN-1. Meanwhile, an estimated 8,088 patients received treatment for GI-NETs, representing a ~1.8-fold increase since 2005. The prevalence was estimated to be 6.42/100,000, with an annual onset incidence of 3.51/100,000. The locations of GI-NETs varied: foregut, 26.1 %; midgut, 3.6 %; and hindgut, 70.3 %. Distant metastasis and complications with MEN-1 were observed in 6.0 and 0.42 % at initial diagnosis, respectively. The frequency of carcinoid syndrome in patients with GI-NETs was 3.2 %. Conclusion We clarified the epidemiological changes in GEP-NETs from 2005 to 2010 in Japan.

Lung neuroendocrine neoplasms are a group of diverse, heterogeneous tumours that range from well-differentiated, low-grade neuroendocrine tumours—such as typical and atypical carcinoids—to high-grade, poorly differentiated aggressive malignancies, such as large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). While the incidence of SCLC has decreased, the worldwide incidence of other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms has been increasing over the past decades. In addition to the standard histopathological classification of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms, the introduction of molecular and sequencing techniques has led to new advances in understanding the biology of these diseases and might influence future classifications and staging that can subsequently improve management guidelines in the adjuvant or metastatic settings. Due to the rarity of neuroendocrine neoplasms, there is a paucity of prospective studies that focus on the lungs, especially in rare, well-differentiated carcinoids and LCNECs. In contrast with the success of targeted therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung often only have a few specific targetable gene alterations. Optimal therapy for LCNECs is not well defined and treatment recommendations are based on extrapolating guidelines for the management of patients with SCLC and NSCLC. This Review explores the epidemiology, diagnosis, and staging of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms to date. In addition, we focus on the evolving molecular landscape and biomarkers, ranging from tumour phenotypes to functional imaging studies and novel molecular biomarkers. We outline the various clinical outcomes, challenges, the treatment landscape, ongoing clinical trials, and future directions.

There are currently no standard first-line treatment options for patients with higher grade 2–3, well-differentiated, advanced, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE (177Lu-Dotatate) treatment. NETTER-2 was an open-label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) with newly diagnosed higher grade 2 (Ki67 ≥10% and ≤20%) and grade 3 (Ki67 >20% and ≤55%), somatostatin receptor-positive (in all target lesions), advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from 45 centres across nine countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. We used interactive response technologies to randomly assign (2:1) patients to receive four cycles (cycle interval was 8 weeks ± 1 week) of intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate plus intramuscular octreotide 30 mg long-acting repeatable (LAR) then octreotide 30 mg LAR every 4 weeks (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose octreotide 60 mg LAR every 4 weeks (control group), stratified by neuroendocrine tumour grade (2 vs 3) and origin (pancreas vs other). Tumour assessments were done at baseline, week 16, and week 24, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded, independent, central radiology assessment. We did the primary analysis at 101 progression-free survival events as the final progression-free survival analysis. NETTER-2 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03972488, and is active and not recruiting. Between Jan 22, 2020, and Oct 13, 2022, we screened 261 patients, 35 (13%) of whom were excluded. We randomly assigned 226 (87%) patients (121 [54%] male and 105 [46%] female) to the 177Lu-Dotatate group (n=151 [67%]) and control group (n=75 [33%]). Median progression-free survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·7–13·8) in the control group and 22·8 months (19·4–not estimated) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group (stratified hazard ratio 0·276 [0·182–0·418]; p<0·0001). During the treatment period, adverse events (of any grade) occurred in 136 (93%) of 147 treated patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 69 (95%) of 73 treated patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths during the treatment period. First-line 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR significantly extended median progression-free survival (by 14 months) in patients with grade 2 or 3 advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 177Lu-Dotatate should be considered a new standard of care in first-line therapy in this population. Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company.

ABSTRACTNeuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) constitute a diverse group of tumors that derive from the sensory and secretory neuroendocrine cells and predominantly arise within the pulmonary and gastrointestinal tracts. The majority of these neoplasms have a well-differentiated grade and are termed neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This subgroup is characterized by limited proliferation and patients affected by these tumors carry a good to moderate prognosis. A substantial subset of patients presenting with a NET suffer from the consequences of endocrine syndromes due to the excessive secretion of amines or peptide hormones, which can impair their quality of life and prognosis. Over the past 15 years, critical developments in tumor grading, diagnostic biomarkers, radionuclide imaging, randomized controlled drug trials, evidence-based guidelines and superior prognostic outcomes have substantially altered the field of NET care. Here, we review the relevant advances to clinical practice that have significantly upgraded our approach to NET patients, both in diagnostic as well as in therapeutic options.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a diverse group of malignancies that can occur in various organs, with a notable prevalence in the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, which are the focus of this Review. Although NETs are rare in individual organs, their incidence has increased over recent decades, highlighting the urgent need for current classification systems to evolve by incorporating recent advances in the understanding of NET biology. Several omics studies have revealed molecular subtypes, which, when integrated into existing classification frameworks, may provide more clinically relevant insights for patients with NETs. This Review examines recent progress in elucidating the biology of NETs, with a particular emphasis on the tumor microenvironment and cells of origin. The existence of different cells of origin, which may contribute to distinct molecular groups, along with profiles of immune infiltration - despite being generally low - could explain the emergence of more aggressive cases and the potential for metastatic progression. Given the molecular heterogeneity of NETs and the diversity of their microenvironments and different cells of origin, there is an urgent need to develop morphomolecular classification systems. Such systems would make it possible to better characterize tumor progression, identify new therapeutic targets, and, ultimately, guide the development of personalized therapies.

Treatment options for patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors are limited. The efficacy of cabozantinib in the treatment of previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is unclear. We enrolled two independent cohorts of patients - those with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and those with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors - who had received peptide receptor radionuclide therapy or targeted therapy or both. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included objective response, overall survival, and safety. In the cohort of 203 patients with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 8.4 months, as compared with 3.9 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the cohort of 95 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 13.8 months, as compared with 4.4 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.42; P<0.001). The incidence of confirmed objective response with cabozantinib was 5% and 19% among patients with extrapancreatic and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, as compared with 0% with placebo. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in 62 to 65% of the patients treated with cabozantinib, as compared with 23 to 27% of the patients who received placebo. Common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher included hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and thromboembolic events. Cabozantinib, as compared with placebo, significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, progressive advanced extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cabozantinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CABINET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03375320.).

Therapeutic options for advanced neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of surufatinib (HMPL-012, sulfatinib) in patients with extrapancreatic NETs. SANET-ep was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 24 hospitals across China. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with unresectable or metastatic, well differentiated, extrapancreatic NETs, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on no more than two types of previous systemic regimens were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) using stratified block randomisation (block size 3) via an interactive web response system to receive oral surufatinib at 300 mg per day or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by tumour origin, pathological grade, and previous treatment. Patients, investigators, research staff and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to the surufatinib group was allowed for patients in the placebo group at disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. A preplanned interim analysis was done at 70% of predicted progression-free survival events. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02588170. Follow-up is ongoing. Between Dec 9, 2015, and March 31, 2019, 198 patients were randomly assigned to surufatinib (n=129) or placebo (n=69). Median follow-up was 13·8 months (95% CI 11·1–16·7) in the surufatinib group and 16·6 months (9·2–not calculable) in the placebo group. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·2 months (95% CI 7·4–11·1) in the surufatinib group versus 3·8 months (3·7–5·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·33; 95% CI 0·22–0·50; p<0·0001). As the trial met the predefined criteria for early discontinuation of the study at the interim analysis, the study was terminated early, as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were hypertension (47 [36%] of 129 patients in the surufatinib group vs nine [13%] of 68 patients in the placebo group) and proteinuria (25 [19%] vs zero). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 32 (25%) of 129 patients in the surufatinib group and nine (13%) of 68 patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three patients in the surufatinib group (disseminated intravascular coagulation and hepatic encephalopathy, liver injury, and death with unknown reason) and one patient in the placebo group (cachexia and respiratory failure). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients given surufatinib compared with patients given placebo, and surufatinib has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with progressive, advanced, well differentiated extrapancreatic NETs. Our results suggest that surufatinib might be a new treatment option for this population. Hutchison MediPharma.

Surufatinib showed superior efficacy in extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) in the phase 3 SANET-ep study. In SANET-p, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of surufatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. SANET-p was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, done in 21 hospitals across China. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18 years or older) with progressive, advanced, well differentiated pancreatic NETs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on up to two kinds of previous systemic regimens for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to receive 300 mg of surufatinib or placebo, taken orally once per day in consecutive 4-week treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, poor compliance, use of other antitumour medication, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, or if the investigator deemed discontinuation in the patient's best interest. Randomisation was done centrally using stratified block randomisation (block size three), stratified by pathological grade, previous systemic antitumour treatment, and ECOG performance status score. Patients, investigators, research staff, and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to surufatinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients in randomisation. A pre-planned interim analysis was done at 70% of the predicted progression-free survival events. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589821. Between Feb 18, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, of 264 patients who were screened, 172 (65%) patients were randomly assigned to receive surufatinib (n=113) or placebo (n=59). The median follow-up was 19·3 months (95% CI 9·3–19·4) in the surufatinib group and 11·1 months (5·7–35·9) in the placebo group. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 10·9 months (7·5–13·8) for surufatinib versus 3·7 months (2·8–5·6) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·49, 95% CI 0·32–0·76; p=0·0011). The trial met the early stopping criteria at the interim analysis and was terminated on recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (43 [38%] of 113 with surufatinib vs four [7%] of 59 with placebo), proteinuria (11 [10%] vs one [2%]), and hypertriglyceridaemia (eight [7%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 25 (22%) patients in the surufatinib group and four (7%) patients in the placebo group. There were three on-treatment deaths in the surufatinib group, including two deaths due to adverse events (gastrointestinal haemorrhage [possibly treatment-related] and cerebral haemorrhage [unlikely to be treatment-related]), and one death attributed to disease progression. One on-treatment death in the placebo group was attributed to disease progression. Surufatinib significantly improves progression-free survival and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with progressive, advanced pancreatic NETs, and could be a potential treatment option in this patient population. Hutchison MediPharma.