Adverse Effects

Brain Cancer

HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Esophageal Cancer

Gastric Cancer

Liver Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Bladder Cancer

Kidney Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Cervical Cancer

Endometrial Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

Gynecologic Cancers

Head & Neck Cancer

Multiple Myeloma

Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Hematologic Oncology

Vaccines

Infection

Leukemia

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)

Lung Cancer

Lymphoma

Neuroendocrine Tumors

Oncology

Pediatric Cancers

Radiation Oncology

Sarcoma

Screening

Skin Cancer & Melanoma

Surgery

Thyroid Cancer

News

Global Bulletin

All News

FDA Approval Alert

Women in Oncology

Media

Around the Practice

Between the Lines

Face Off

From All Angles

Meeting of the Minds

OncView

Podcasts

Training Academy

Treatment Algorithms with the Oncology Brothers

Videos

Conferences

Publications

All Journals

Editorial Board

For Authors

Year in Review

Events

Frontline Forum

Satellite Sessions

CME/CE

Resources

Awareness Month

Nurse Practitioners/Physician's Assistants

Partners

Career Center

Subscribe

CancerNetwork is home to the journal Oncology & provides insights on the screening, early detection, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cancers.

About

Advertise

CureToday.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

TargetedOnc.com

Editorial

Contact

Terms and Conditions

Privacy

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

CancerNetwork - Oncology News and Clinical Expertise

Facebook

LinkedIn

Youtube

Spotlight

Clinical

Genitourinary Cancer

Gynecologic Cancer

Hematology

Skin Cancer

1rem

Topics

 spoke with Natasha Bahri, MD, MS, and Daneng Li, MD, about their Hot Topics article titled 

Casting a Wide NET: When Is the Optimal Time for 177Lu-Dotatate Treatment?,

 which was published in the November 2024 issue of 

. Their article focused on findings related to the use of 

Lu-dotatate; Lutathera) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and whether these data supported the use of the novel radioligand therapy for this population.

Bahri is a PGY-5 chief fellow in Medical Oncology and Hematology at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California. Li is an associate professor in the Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California, and a gastrointestinal editorial board member of 

Bahri and Li discussed findings from the phase 3 NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239) assessing 

Lu-dotatate for those with inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic, grade 1/2 midgut NETs following progression on long-acting repeatable octreotide therapy.

 Although these findings established a significant efficacy signal with the radioligand therapy, Li noted that questions remained regarding the sequencing of 

Lu-dotatate alongside other therapies in the treatment landscape.

The conversation also covered efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life (QOL) data from the phase 3 NETTER-2 trial (NCT03972488), in which investigators assessed high-dose octreotide with or without 

Lu-dotatate among patients with locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic NETs.

 Although data showed improvements in efficacy with the 

Lu-dotatate combination, there did not appear to be significant differences regarding QOL outcomes between arms.

“We’re waiting for further long-term follow-up information as there was no difference in the QOL metrics. It’s important to think about how these patients’ goals align with the therapy that we’re giving, and if we’re not seeing a difference in the quality of life quite yet, [we need to] look at individual patients, see what their goals are, and match them up to the therapy that we’re giving them,” Bahri stated.

Although the NETTER-1 and NETTER-2 trials demonstrate “great” results associated with efficacy end points such as progression-free survival, the authors noted that it is crucial to weigh these benefits with the potential toxicities when determining suitable candidates for treatment with 

“There’s a lot of nuances in terms of who is the ideal patient that’s going to maximally benefit [while] minimizing any risk of serious toxicity in those patients. As a result of that, we’re helping to improve their outcomes to the highest bars possible, whether it’s quality of life or survival,” Li concluded.

Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, et al; NETTER-1 Trial Investigators. Phase 3 trial of 177Lu-Dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. 

 2017;376(2):125-135. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607427

Singh S, Halperin D, Myrehaug S, et al; NETTER-2 Trial Investigators. [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE plus long-acting octreotide versus high-dose long-acting octreotide for the treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced grade 2-3, well-differentiated, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-2): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. 

. 2024;403(10446):2807-2817. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00701-3

Oncologists discuss data from the NETTER-1 and NETTER-2 trials and the extent to which they support the applicability of 177Lu-dotatate in NETs.

Determining Suitable Radioligand Therapy Use in Neuroendocrine Tumors

Results from the phase 3 COMPETE trial demonstrated that 177Lu-edotreotide improved PFS and ORR compared with everolimus in patients with GEP-NETs.

FDA Accepts New Drug Application for 177Lu-Edotreotide in GEP-NETs

Micheal C. Soulen, MD, spoke about his presentation on the CapTemY90 trial at the 2025 NANETS Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium.

Could Radioembolization Be Added to Chemotherapy for Liver-Dominant NETs?

Considering historical trends of underpowered data in NET surgical studies, CUTNETs established a collaboration of surgical teams to better power research.

Forming CUTNETs: A Joint Venture Between Surgery and Oncology in NETs

A manageable safety profile and survival benefit was observed across patient groups with somatostatin receptor–positive GEP-NETs.

212Pb-Dotamtate Prolongs Responses in Advanced GEP-NETs

Data from the phase 3 CABINET trial support the CHMP’s positive opinion of cabozantinib in well-differentiated extrapancreatic or pancreatic NETs.

Cabozantinib Earns CHMP Recommendation in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Although 1 of 21 patients with liver-dominant NETs died due to RILD in the phase 1 study, no RILD-induced deaths were observed in the phase 2 trial.

Radioembolization Plus Chemotherapy Is Feasible in Liver-Dominant NETs

The toxicity of radioembolization with the radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents capecitabine (Xeloda) and temozolomide (Temodar) was additive in patients with liver-dominant neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and no new safety signals were identified, according to Michael C. Soulen, MD, director of Interventional Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

He spoke with CancerNetwork® in an interview at the 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium about a presentation of the phase 2 CapTemY90 trial (NCT04339036), assessing the combination of radioembolization and chemotherapy in patients with liver-dominant NETs, he gave at the conference. Specifically, he highlighted safety findings, with an emphasis on adverse effects.

Soulen began by highlighting findings from the phase 1 portion of the trial, which showed that administering the combination regimen was feasible among patients with liver-metastatic NETs. Furthermore, he noted that the most common toxicity was cytopenia, with platelet count decreases also being the most prevalent. He further emphasized that toxicities with radioembolization were uncommon, but that radioembolization-induced liver disease (RILD) could be a major concern.

In the phase 1 trial, which included 21 patients, he stated that 1 patient died due to an RILD event. However, in the larger phase 2 trial, which enrolled approximately 50 patients, he noted that no patients had died from RILD complications.

We did the phase 1 study several years ago. Of course, if you combine 2 things, they could be synergistically toxic. They could be too intolerable for the patient. We did a 21-patient phase 1 study, and we demonstrated that it was feasible. We could do this: combine [radioembolization and chemotherapy]. Almost everybody was able to complete the regimen as prescribed. The toxicity was additive. That means we expected toxicity from the drugs and expected toxicity from the radiation, but not worse [toxicity].

The major toxicity you see are cytopenias and drops, particularly [for] the platelet counts. We continue to see more or less what you would expect from the dose of [capecitabine/temozolomide] that they are on. Y90 toxicities, fortunately, are quite uncommon. Most people have none. The big question we worry about is what’s called radioembolization-induced liver disease (RILD), which can happen in anyone who is getting radioembolization.

You worry about whether you potentiate that with chemotherapy. In the phase 1 cohort, we did have 1 patient who died from [RILD]. That could happen, and in a 20-patient [cohort], you do not know if that’s more [than] you expect. So far, so good in the larger 50-patient phase 2 cohort. It does seem to be pretty much as expected, so no worrisome signals in terms of toxicity.

Soulen MC, Iyer R, Berman Z, Chauhan A, Thornton L. Multicenter phase 2 trial of Yttrium-90 radioembolization with capecitabine-temozolomide for grade 2 liver-dominant metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: interim report. Presented at the 2025 NANETS Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium; October 23-25, 2025; Austin, TX. Abstract 33445.

CapTemY90 for Grade 2/3 NET Liver Metastases (CapTemY90). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated September 5, 2025. Accessed November 4, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/5euyvtu4

Conference

A simulation procedure helped to ascertain chemotherapy tolerability before administering radioembolization therapy for NETs with liver metastases.

Outlining a Radioembolization/Chemotherapy Regimen for NET Liver Metastases

In an interview with CancerNetwork® at the 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium, Michael C. Soulen, MD, discussed the design of a phase 2 trial (NCT04339036) he conducted to ascertain the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of radioembolization with the radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents capecitabine (Xeloda) and temozolomide (Temodar) in patients with grade 2 or 3 liver-dominant neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

He began by highlighting the dosing schedule for chemotherapy, which was given in 4-week cycles, 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off, for as long as a patient could tolerate it. Additionally, Soulen identified a need to undertake a simulation procedure, wherein a harmless nuclear medicine agent is administered, to ensure that radioembolization can be done safety in conjunction with chemotherapy.

Furthermore, he explained that 7 days into the second cycle of chemotherapy, the radioembolization seeds are instilled, with the option to irradiate the other lobe the following month, if needed. Soulen concluded by saying that this combination regimen was hypothesized to attain a higher response rate and/or more durable responses vs either therapy alone.

Soulen is director of Interventional Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

We came up with this regimen where patients would start their [capecitabine-temozolomide]—which is an oral chemotherapy regimen taken for 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off—and you keep doing that every month for as long as it works, where the patient can tolerate it. They need to do that first to make sure they can tolerate the chemotherapy. [Because] a small number of patients [will not], if you are going to do radioembolization, you first must do a simulation procedure.

They need a catheterization, where we map out the plumbing of their liver. We do a test injection of a harmless nuclear medicine agent. We do a nuclear medicine SPECT scan. In the first month, they get their first cycle of chemotherapy––[we] make sure they can tolerate the chemotherapy, and they get the simulation for radioembolization––[and we] make sure that can be done safely. Then, the next month, on cycle 2, we drop the radioembolization procedure on day 7 of the 14 days of chemotherapy. They get a week of chemotherapy, they get their seeds instilled, and then on the next week of chemotherapy, the seeds are radiating their tumors. Then, if you need the other lobe treated, we do that the next month, and then they stay on the chemotherapy every month as long as it’s working and they can tolerate it.

The hope was that by combining the 2, that we would get either a higher response rate, more durable control, or both.

The addition of radioembolization to radiosensitizing chemotherapy may help concurrently treat patients with liver tumors and disease outside the liver.

Searching for Synergy in Liver-Dominant Neuroendocrine Tumors

The addition of radioembolization to a combination of capecitabine (Xeloda) and temozolomide (Temodar) as radiosensitizing chemotherapy may improve efficacy outcomes for patients with liver-dominant neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), according to Michael C. Soulen, MD.

Soulen, director of interventional oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, spoke with CancerNetwork® at the 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium about a presentation he gave on the phase 2 CapTemY90 trial (NCT04339036).

 Providing some background for the trial, he initially explained that embolization-based combinations have been used for liver-dominant NETs for over 50 years.

Soulen then expressed that although these combinations are effective and durable enough on their own, a need to enhance treatment outcomes persists. To that end, he outlined considerations for combination therapies, suggesting that, at worst, combinations could be wasted as opposed to sequencing therapies. At best, however, treatments could function synergistically and deliver outcomes that are greater than the sum of their parts.

In this trial, he explained, his team evaluated radioembolization with radiosensitizing chemotherapy, which is already a standard combination therapy for NETs, to attempt to achieve that treatment synergy. He concluded by highlighting that this combination may help treat the primary tumor and metastases concurrently, which would help those with more aggressive liver-dominant NET histologies.

We have been doing [liver-directed therapy] for patients with liver-dominant NETs for 50 years. Those treatments are typically either bland embolization, chemoembolization, or radioembolization, all of which are reasonably effective and reasonably durable. But we are always looking for ways to make them better, either make them [with a] higher response rate or more durable. A very logical thing to do would be to combine our interventional therapies with a drug or a systemic therapy, where the goal is synergy.

The problem of combining 2 therapies at once is you are firing 2 bullets. That could be bad for the patient in the sense that you essentially expended one more bullet than you needed and used a therapy that may have benefited them later in life if you do them sequentially. When you combine 2 things, the most likely outcome is you wasted one of them, in part. They could be additive, meaning that you get the benefit of both at the same time, which would be OK, but the Holy Grail is synergy. Something where you combine them and they are better than the sum of the parts.

In this particular trial, we were looking at radioembolization, a technique where we instill millions of little radioactive seeds into the liver that get embedded in the tumor. They radiate the tumor from the inside out. Radiation oncologists, for years, have been doing what they call radiosensitizing chemotherapy. If you are doing radiation therapy for your brain tumors, gastrointestinal tumors, [or] any kind of tumor, they almost always give a chemotherapy drug such as capecitabine or temozolomide, which are known to make radiation work better.

Capecitabine and temozolomide are a standard combination therapy in NETs. The idea of combining that with radioembolization evolved very organically out of our tumor board. We had patients who had liver metastases, but they also had disease outside the liver that the medical oncologist wanted to treat. They had a more aggressive histology—maybe a high grade 2 or something where we were worried—where I wanted to treat the liver [and] the medical oncologist wanted to treat everything else. We said, “Well, why don’t we do it together?”

Soulen MC, Iyer R, Berman Z, Chauhan A, Thornton L. Multicenter phase 2 trial of yttrium-90 radioembolization with capecitabine-temozolomide for grade 2 liver-dominant metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: interim report. Abstract presented at: 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium; October 23-25, 2025; Austin, TX. Abstract 33445.

CapTemY90 for grade 2/3 NET liver metastases (CapTemY90). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated September 5, 2025. Accessed November 4, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/5euyvtu4

How Do GLP-1 Agents Factor Into Neuroendocrine Tumor Care Strategies? In neuroendocrine tumor management, patients with insulinoma may be at risk of severe hypoglycemia following receipt of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Dillon 1

As part of the 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium in Austin, Texas, CancerNetwork

 sat down with Joseph Dillon, MBBCh, BAO, to discuss his presentation focused on the current uses and risks associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for patients who are undergoing treatment for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Specifically, Dillon highlighted strategies that an oncology team can implement to monitor patients who may initiate GLP-1 agents during their treatment course.

According to Dillon, professor of internal medicine-endocrinology and metabolism and director of the Neuroendocrine Tumor Clinic at University of Iowa Health Care in Iowa City, certain patients—such as those with NETs located in the thyroid or a history of the genetic disorder multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) type 2—should avoid initiating GLP-1 agents due to risks such as hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal toxicities. He also recommended following up more frequently with patients who initiate GLP-1 agents to ensure no changes in the growth or the symptomatology related to their disease.

Most often, [members of] the oncology team are not the ones initiating a GLP-1 agent because the indication is obesity and diabetes, so these agents are being initiated by their primary care doctors, endocrinologists, etc. Most often, the oncology team [members] are finding that their patients have started on them; sometimes the patient tells them that their doctor plans to start them on it. Is that OK?

There are some very clear issues. If the patient has a neuroendocrine tumor of the thyroid—that is, a medullary thyroid carcinoma—or a history of the genetic disorder MEN type 2, then they should be strongly counseled not to start those agents because there is a black box on the approval of these agents. In patients with insulinoma, they should not be started on these agents. These agents will stimulate insulin secretion and could cause severe hypoglycemia. It's important for the oncology team to know when patients are starting these agents because many of them have gastrointestinal [adverse] effects, which might be confused with an exacerbation of carcinoid syndrome, which is seen in [patients with] neuroendocrine tumors, which might lead to an increase in the therapy for neuroendocrine tumors, which would not be appropriate.

In people who are starting these agents or taking these agents, it may be necessary to see them at a somewhat more frequent basis, at least over the first 6 to 12 months of taking these agents, to make sure that there is not a deviation in the growth or the symptomatology associated with the neuroendocrine tumor. The other thing is, at least from the basic research viewpoint, there are tumors that express GLP-1 receptors, particularly pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and duodenal neuroendocrine tumors, where there's the potential of having growth. There are also neuroendocrine tumors, such as small bowel neuroendocrine tumors and ileal neuroendocrine tumors, which do not, in general, express GLP receptors, for which I would not have a concern with GLP-1 agents.

However, there are newer agents in that marketplace of GLP, which are called GLP-GIP [glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide] agents, which stimulate both a GLP receptor and a GIP receptor. The GIP receptor is very widely expressed throughout all neuroendocrine tumors, so it may be a matter of suggesting to patients that perhaps they could be on a GLP-1 agent, but they cannot be on a GLP-1/GIP agent. Most famously, those agents would be semaglutide [Ozempic] being a pure GLP agent, whereas tirzepatide [Mounjaro] is a GLP/GIP agent.

Dillon J. GLP-1 receptor agonists: current clinical uses and potential risks. Presented at: 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium; October 23-25, 2025; Austin, TX.

In neuroendocrine tumor management, patients with insulinoma may be at risk of severe hypoglycemia following receipt of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

How Do GLP-1 Agents Factor Into Neuroendocrine Tumor Care Strategies?

Novel SSTR-Targeted Alpha Therapy Shows “Encouraging” Activity in GEP-NETs. 212Pb-DOTAMTATE showed “unexpectedly good” outcomes among those with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, said Mary Maluccio, MD, MPH, FACS.

NANETS 1.2

At the 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium in Austin, Texas, CancerNetwork

 spoke with Jonathan Strosberg, MD; and Mary Maluccio, MD, MPH, FACS, about their presentations on different cohorts from the phase 2 ALPHAMEDIX02 trial (NCT05153772) assessing the investigational somatostatin receptor (SSTR)–targeted alpha therapy lead Pb 212 DOTAMTATE (

Pb-DOTAMTATE; AlphaMedix) for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Strosberg’s session focused on a cohort of patients who received prior treatment with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), whereas Maluccio presented long-term data on those who had no prior exposure to PRRTs.

Strosberg, a professor at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, specializing in the management of neuroendocrine malignancies, highlighted data across both GEP-NET cohorts, detailing efficacy outcomes that were “quite good” in the PRRT-naive group and emphasizing a “strong level of activity” in patients who were previously treated with PRRT. He noted that additional randomized data were necessary to affirm the outcomes reported with 

Pb-DOTAMTATE and compare its efficacy with other standards of care.

Maluccio, a professor of surgery at Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, recapped the “unexpectedly good” findings in the PRRT-naive cohort of the trial before describing the most common adverse effects associated with the study treatment. She highlighted instances of renal toxicity—which may be more prevalent in those with elevated creatinine levels—and dysphagia, which raised questions on how to evaluate patients during and after treatment.

Pb-DOTAMTATE. It’s a radioligand that targets somatostatin receptor–expressing neuroendocrine tumors. This was a phase 2 study that had 2 cohorts. One [included] patients who were PRRT naive, and the other [included] patients who had received prior lutetium-based PRRT. The primary end point for the study was overall response rate by investigator analysis as well as adverse events. Secondary end points included progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival.

There were approximately 35 patients with gastroenteropancreatic NETs in the PRRT-naive cohort. They had all received prior treatment, primarily somatostatin analogues, but in about a quarter of [patients], also chemotherapy and targeted agents. The overall response rate was quite impressive. It was approximately 60%; most of the other patients had stable disease as best outcome. The PFS rate at 36 months was approximately 70% to 75%, and overall survival was also quite favorable. The overall survival rate at 36 months was approximately 88%, so the efficacy outcomes were quite good.

As far as the PRRT-refractory cohort, it was a smaller group. [There were] 26 patients followed for a shorter amount of time because they were enrolled later in the study. The median follow-up there was about 14.5 months, and this was a heavily pretreated population. Not surprisingly, the response rate was lower. It was more or less 35%, and at 18 months, the PFS rate was approximately 75% to 80%. Again, [there was a] strong level of activity for a population of patients who had received prior lutetium-based PRRT, especially lutetium Lu 177 dotatate [Lutathera] plus, in many cases, other drugs; about half the patients had received prior chemotherapy.

Pb-DOTAMTATE is a novel alpha-emitting PRRT with high efficacy, at least in single-arm data. Randomized data are…needed to ultimately compare its efficacy with current drugs. It certainly seems quite encouraging as far as efficacy, but there are some long-term toxicities that we also need to pay attention to.

In both the patients who had never received a radioligand therapy before and in patients who had already received a beta particle radioligand and were then being treated in the second line, the objective response rates were well above 50%. In the [patients who were] radioligand therapy naive—that was the presentation that I gave—it was a 60% objective response rate. There was an additional [34.3%] of patients who had stable disease. In the presentation, they looked at the objective response rate of 60%. They then added the 34.3% for the overall disease control rate; that hit around 94.3%. [This was] unexpectedly good going into that clinical trial.

The safety is also something that we brought up. There was a lot of discussion in the question and answer session on the safety profile. We highlighted 2 things that we are going to look a lot closer at as we go into the phase 3 trial. That would be renal toxicity, which is an inherent safety issue with radioligand therapy, but we did not see any significant renal or long-term renal toxicity with beta particles. The investment in alpha particle is likely associated with a bit more renal toxicity in people with elevated creatinine levels or in people who ultimately developed chronic kidney disease over not only the course of treatment.... We did not start seeing [this] until after the fourth dose of treatment.

Renal toxicity is one. Then the dysphagia question that came up was somewhat unexpected. Therefore, it’s a bit difficult for us to understand what that means in the context of a treatment that, for all intents and purposes, would not have necessarily led to a functional esophageal or gastroesophageal dysfunction. The dysphagia question was probably discussed a lot more, not with clear-cut answers to why it happened but more in the context of what we would maybe do differently with respect to patients with dysphagia, either in standardizing our evaluation of those patients during treatment or after treatment or some of the strategies that we have used to diminish some of those functional things, like botulinum neurotoxin [Botox] injections.

Strosberg JR, Naqvi S, Cohn AL, et al. Phase 2 study of targeted alpha therapy 212Pb-DOTAMTATE in patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NETs previously treated with PRRT. Abstract presented at: 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium; October 23-25, 2025; Austin, TX. Abstract 33429.

Strosberg JR, Naqvi S, Cohn AL, et al. Long-term follow-up of PRRT-naïve patients with GEPNETs treated with targeted alpha therapy 212PbDOTAMTATE in the phase 2 ALPHAMEDIX 02 trial. Abstract presented at: 2025 North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Multidisciplinary NET Medical Symposium; October 23-25, 2025; Austin, TX. Abstract 33414.

212Pb-DOTAMTATE showed “unexpectedly good” outcomes among those with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, said Mary Maluccio, MD, MPH, FACS.

Novel SSTR-Targeted Alpha Therapy Shows “Encouraging” Activity in GEP-NETs

CAR T, Targeted Therapies, Others as Treatment Options on the Horizon in NETs

Anna Greene, PhD, director of research at the Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation (NETRF), highlighted in an interview with CancerNetwork®, up-and-coming research that was funded by NETRF. The focus of NETRF’s research program is on the most important basic and translational research.

NETRF funded preclinical work for a novel CAR T-cell immunotherapy targeting CDH17, which was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Currently, a phase 1/2 trial is underway, and initial results have shown that one neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patient achieved stabilized disease at 60 days. 

 She also spoke about the uPAR target, which may help patients with higher-grade disease who do not respond to somatostatin-targeted therapies.

Overall, the work the NETRF is doing is exciting, and she hopes to see these trials make significant progress to help provide more efficacious and targeted treatments for NETs.

The NETRF lends funding to help discover new and emerging treatment options in neuroendocrine tumors, according to Anna Greene, PhD. 

Neuroendocrine Tumors

Latest News