The prognosis and management of neuroendocrine neoplasms-related metastatic bone disease: lessons from clinical practice
To study the evolution and optimal management of metastatic bone disease (mBD) in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs).
Seventy-four patients were recruited from four NEN centers in this observational multicenter study.
Pancreas and small bowel were the most common primaries (30 and 27%, respectively). Almost all gastrointestinal (GI)-NENs were grades 1 and 2, whereas bronchopulmonary-thymic were atypical carcinoids. Thirty-two (43%) patients had synchronous metastatic bone disease (mBD) and three patients reported bone-specific symptoms; metachronous mBD developed at a median of 35 (range: 4–395) months. Thirty-six (86%) of patients with metachronous mBD had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Somatostatin receptor functional imaging and computed tomography were the modalities mostly used for mBD identification. Fifty-two patients received assessable bone-related therapy (bisphosphonates, denosumab, local radiotherapy, and radionuclide treatment). Improvement in mBD was seen in 5, stable disease in 22, and deterioration in 25 patients. The presence of synchronous mBD and the negative outcome of bone-related therapy negatively affected overall survival (OS). In the multivariate analysis, the stronger predictor of OS was the outcome of bone-related therapy (HR: 4.753; 95% CI: 1.589–14.213). Bisphosphonates therapy was the mostly used bone-specific treatment but its monthly administration did not affect OS. At last follow-up, 39 patients were alive with OS 50 (14–463) months.
Early investigation for mBD offers a prognostic marker of patients with NENs, since synchronous mBD has a negative impact on survival. The outcome of bone-related therapy affects OS but the monthly administration of bisphosphonates did not show a benefit over less intense schemes.
KeywordsNeuroendocrine neoplasms Metastatic bone disease Bisphosphonates Denosumab
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Formal consent was given by all participants.
- 1.W.G. Meijer, E. van der Veer, P.L. Jager, E.J. van der Jagt, B.A. Piers, I.P. Kema, E.G. de Vries, P.H. Willemse, Bone metastases in carcinoid tumors: clinical features, imaging characteristics, and markers of bone metabolism. J. Nucl. Med. 44, 184–191 (2003)Google Scholar
- 3.C. Lombard-Bohas, E. Mitry, D. O’Toole, C. Louvet, D. Pillon, G. Cadiot, F. Borson-Chazot, T. Aparicio, M. Ducreux, T. Lecomte, P.L. Etienne, W. Cacheux, J.L. Legoux, J.F. Seitz, P. Ruszniewski, J.A. Chayvialle, P. Rougier, FFCD-ANGH-GERCOR, Thirteen-month registration of patients with gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumours in France. Neuroendocrinology 89, 217–222 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon, N.S. Tchekmedyian, R. Yanagihara, V. Hirsh, M. Krzakowski, M. Pawlicki, P. De Souza, M. Zheng, G. Urbanowitz, D. Reitsma, J. Seaman, Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma and other solid tumors: a randomized, phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer 100, 2613–2621 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.A. Perren, A. Couvelard, J.Y. Scoazec, F. Costa, I. Borbath, G. Delle Fave, V. Gorbounova, D. Gross, A. Grossman, R.T. Jense, M. Kulke, K. Oeberg, G. Rindi, H. Sorbye, S. Welin; Antibes Consensus Conference participants, ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: Pathology: Diagnosis and Prognostic Stratification. Neuroendocrinology 105, 196–200 (2017)Google Scholar
- 19.F. Panzuto, S. Nasoni, M. Falconi, V.D. Corleto, G. Capurso, S. Cassetta, M. Di Fonzo, V. Tornatore, M. Milione, S. Angeletti, M.S. Cattaruzza, V. Ziparo, C. Bordi, P. Pederzoli, G. Delle Fave, Prognostic factors and survival in endocrine tumor patients: comparison between gastrointestinal and pancreatic localization. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 12, 1083–1092 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.B. Kos-Kudła, D. O’Toole, M. Falconi, D. Gross, G. Klöppel, A. Sundin, J. Ramage, K. Oberg, B. Wiedenmann, P. Komminoth, E. Van Custem, M. Mallath, M. Papotti, M. Caplin; Palma de Mallorca Consensus Conference Participants, ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of bone and lung metastases from neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 91, 341–350 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.U. Knigge, J. Capdevila, D.K. Bartsch, E. Baudin, J. Falkerby, R. Kianmanesh, B. Kos-Kudla, B. Niederle, E. Nieveen van Dijkum, D. O’Toole, A. Pascher, N. Reed, A. Sundin, M.P. Vullierme; Antibes Consensus Conference Participants; Antibes Consensus Conference participants, ENETS Consensus Recommendations for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: follow-up and documentation. Neuroendocrinology 105, 310–319 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.D. Putzer, M. Gabriel, B. Henninger, D. Kendler, C. Uprimny, G. Dobrozemsky, C. Decristoforo, R.J. Bale, W. Jaschke, I.J. Virgolini, Bone metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumor: 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in comparison to CT and bone scintigraphy. J. Nucl. Med. 50, 1214–1221 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.H.J. Hansmann, C. Wunsch, B. Schneider, M. Brado, M. Flesch, G.M. Richter, G.W. Kauffmann, Radiologic diagnosis of bone metastases. Orthopade 27, 224–230 (1998)Google Scholar
- 26.F. Gibril, J.L. Doppman, J.C. Reynolds, C.C. Chen, V.E. Sutliff, F. Yu, J. Serrano, D.J. Venzon, R.T. Jensen, Bone metastases in patients with gastrinomas: a prospective study of bone scanning, somatostatin receptor scanning, and magnetic resonance image in their detection, frequency, location, and effect of their detection on management. J. Clin. Oncol. 16, 1040–1053 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.R. Lebtahi, G. Cadiot, N. Delahaye, R. Genin, D. Daou, M.C. Peker, D. Chosidow, M. Faraggi, M. Mignon, D. Le Guludec, Detection of bone metastases in patients with endocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors: bone scintigraphy compared with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy. J. Nucl. Med. 40, 1602–1608 (1999)Google Scholar
- 28.M. Raderer, A. Kurtaran, M. Leimer, P. Angelberger, B. Niederle, H. Vierhapper, F. Vorbeck, M.H. Hejna, W. Scheithauer, J. Pidlich, I. Virgolini, Value of peptide receptor scintigraphy using (123)I-vasoactive intestinal peptide and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe1-octreotide in 194 carcinoid patients: Vienna University Experience, 1993 to 1998. J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 1331–1336 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.D.J. Kwekkeboom, J.J. Teunissen, W.H. Bakker, P.P. Kooij, W.W. de Herder, R.A. Feelders, C.H. van Eijck, J.P. Esser, B.L. Kam, E.P. Krenning., Radiolabeled somatostatin analog [177Lu-DOTA0,Tyr3]octreotate in patients with endocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 2754–2762 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.A. Sabet, F. Khalaf, T. Haslerud, A. Al-Zreiqat, A. Sabet, B. Simon, T.D. Pöppel, H.J. Biersack, S. Ezziddin, Bone metastases in GEP-NET: response and long-term outcome after PRRT from a follow-up analysis. Am. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 3, 437–445 (2013)Google Scholar
- 31.S. Ezziddin, A. Sabet, F. Heinemann, C.J. Yong-Hing, H. Ahmadzadehfar, S. Guhlke, T. Höller, W. Willinek, C. Boy, H.J. Biersack, Response and long-term control of bone metastases after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with (177)Lu-octreotate. J. Nucl. Med. 52, 1197–1203 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.M. Gnant, J. Baselga, H.S. Rugo, S. Noguchi, H.A. Burris, M. Piccart, G.N. Hortobagyi, J. Eakle, H. Mukai, H. Iwata, M. Geberth, L.L. Hart, P. Hadji, M. El-Hashimy, S. Rao, T. Taran, T. Sahmoud, D. Lebwohl, M. Campone, K.I. Pritchard, Effect of everolimus on bone marker levels and progressive disease in bone in BOLERO-2. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 105, 654–663 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar