Search

Edward M Wolin,1 Barbara Jarzab,2 Barbro Eriksson,3 Thomas Walter,4 Christos Toumpanakis,5 Michael A Morse,6 Paola Tomassetti,7 Matthias M Weber,8 David R Fogelman,9 John Ramage,10 Donald Poon,11 Brian Gadbaw,12 Jiang Li,12 Janice L Pasieka,13 Abakar Mahamat,14 Fredrik Swahn,15 John Newell-Price,16 Wasat Mansoor,17 Kjell Öberg3 1Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 2Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland; 3Department of Medical Sciences, Endocrine Oncology Unit, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Oncology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France; 5Gastroenterology and Neuroendocrine Tumours, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK; 6Department of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 7Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Hospital St Orsola, Bologna, Italy; 8Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany; 9Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 10Gastroenterology Unit, North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, UK; 11Department of Medical Oncology, Raffles Hospital and Duke–NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore; 12Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 13Surgery and Oncology Faculty of Medicine, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, AB, Canada; 14Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, CHU de Nice Hôpital de l’Archet 1, Nice, France; 15Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Universitatssjukhuset, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden; 16Department of Human Metabolism, School of Medicine and Biomedical Science, The University of Sheffield, and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK; 17Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK Abstract: In a randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, we compared pasireotide long-acting release (pasireotide LAR) with octreotide long-acting repeatable (octreotide LAR) in managing carcinoid symptoms refractory to first-generation somatostatin analogues. Adults with carcinoid tumors of the digestive tract were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive pasireotide LAR (60 mg) or octreotide LAR (40 mg) every 28 days. Primary outcome was symptom control based on frequency of bowel movements and flushing episodes. Objective tumor response was a secondary outcome. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated in a post hoc analysis. Adverse events were recorded. At the time of a planned interim analysis, the data monitoring committee recommended halting the study because of a low predictive probability of showing superiority of pasireotide over octreotide for symptom control (n=43 pasireotide LAR, 20.9%; n=45 octreotide LAR, 26.7%; odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–1.97; P=0.53). Tumor control rate at month 6 was 62.7% with pasireotide and 46.2% with octreotide (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.89–4.32; P=0.09). Median (95% CI) PFS was 11.8 months (11.0 – not reached) with pasireotide versus 6.8 months (5.6 – not reached) with octreotide (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20–0.98; P=0.045). The most frequent drug-related adverse events (pasireotide vs octreotide) included hyperglycemia (28.3% vs 5.3%), fatigue (11.3% vs 3.5%), and nausea (9.4% vs 0%). We conclude that, among patients with carcinoid symptoms refractory to available somatostatin analogues, similar proportions of patients receiving pasireotide LAR or octreotide LAR achieved symptom control at month 6. Pasireotide LAR showed a trend toward higher tumor control rate at month 6, although it was statistically not significant, and was associated with a longer PFS than octreotide LAR. Keywords: neuroendocrine tumors, carcinoid syndrome, somatostatin analogues, pasireotide, symptom control, progression-free survival