Satya Das, MD, MSCI, on the Design of a Study of PRRT in Patients With Well-Differentiated NETs

Video

The expert in hematology/oncology spoke about the study which evaluated the use of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors.

Of patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD-NETs) who were treated with 3 to 4 doses of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), those with a lower clinical score experienced better progression-free survival (PFS) with treatment when compared against those with a higher clinical score, according to results from a study presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium.

Of note, this difference in PFS was not observed in patients who did not receive PRRT, indicating there is a predictive utility of clinical score for patients with WD-NETs receiving PRRT with lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera).

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, Satya Das, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of Medicine in the department of Medicine of the division of Hematology/Oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, discussed the design of the study.

Transcription:

There’s a lot of uncertainty as to when patients with well-differentiated NETs should get Lutathera or treatment with [peptide receptor radionuclide therapy; PRRT]. The focus of our study was to actually assess and look for answers. It was a cohort analysis that we did. And we looked at 146 patients, 122 at Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center and 24 from Rush Medical Center. We had a total of 146 patients included in this cohort.

Reference:

Das S, Du L, Schad A, et al. A clinical score (CS) for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD NETs) under consideration for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with Lu 177-dotatate. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(suppl 3). Abstract: 363.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content