Does the dose matter? Antiproliferative efficacy and toxicity of everolimus in patients with neuroendocrine tumors – Experiences from a tertiary referral center

Abstract

AbstractThe mTOR‐inhibitor everolimus has been approved for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) but is associated with relevant toxicities in clinical practice. Hence, optimal treatment sequencing and the impact of dose reductions have yet to be clarified. This retrospective analysis assessed patients with advanced, well‐differentiated NET treated with everolimus at the Medical University of Vienna. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of everolimus in a real‐world cohort. A total of 52 patients treated with everolimus for advanced NET grade 1 (G1) or G2 (or typical or atypical carcinoid) 2010–2021 were included in this analysis. The most common sites of origin were pancreas (44%) and lung (29%). The initial dose was decided by the treating physician based on clinical assessment and 25 patients (48%) each were started at 10 mg/day and 5 mg/day. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) following everolimus in the overall cohort was 9.8 months (95% CI: 4.3–15.3), with a statistically significant PFS difference (p = .03) between NET G1/typical carcinoids (42.9 months) and NET G2/atypical carcinoids (8.9 months). PFS was numerically but not significantly shorter in patients treated with a reduced dose (7.5 months vs. 12.4 months, p = .359). Even in this mixed full/half dose cohort, 93% developed treatment‐related side effects (mostly grade I, no grade IV), 63% had dose reductions or interruptions, and five stopped due to toxicity. Median survival following treatment was 40.9 months (95% CI: 21.5–60.3) and no difference with regard to dosing was observed (p = .517). These data from an unselected patient cohort show long‐term outcomes similar to those reported in the pivotal studies. Comparing everolimus starting dose, median PFS did not significantly differ for patients treated at a lower dose. While this finding is limited by the sample size and warrants prospective verification, initiating therapy at a reduced dose might be practicable and safe in a distinct subset of patients.