Response to temozolomide and bevacizumab in a patient with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma

Department of Endocrine Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden.
Medical Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.63). 12/2010; 29(1):301-3. DOI: 10.1007/s12032-010-9789-4
Source: PubMed


Poorly differentiated endocrine carcinomas (PDEC) are usually treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. We here present a case with a dramatic response (both radiologically and biochemically) to the combination of temozolomide and bevacizumab, after failure of cisplatin and etoposide, with continued tumor shrinkage at 5 months. Temozolomide combined with bevacizumab might be a good treatment option in PDEC, perhaps even in a first-line setting. Prospective studies to answer this are warranted.

1 Follower
14 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are often indolent malignancies that commonly present with metastatic disease in the liver. Surgical, locoregional, and systemic treatment modalities are reviewed. A multidisciplinary approach to patient care is suggested to ensure all therapeutic options explored.
    02/2012; 2012(32):819193. DOI:10.1155/2012/819193
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The considerable research efforts devoted to the understanding of the mechanisms of tumor angiogenesis have resulted in the development of targeted anti-angiogenic therapies and finally in their introduction in clinical practice. Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), which are characterized by a high vascular supply and a strong expression of VEGF-A, one of the most potent pro-angiogenic factors, are an attractive indication for these new treatments. However, several lines of evidence show that the dense vascular networks associated with low-grade NETs are more likely to be a marker of differentiation than a marker of aggressiveness, as in other epithelial tumors. These observations form the basis for the so-called 'neuroendocrine paradox', according to which the most vascularized are the most differentiated and the less angiogenic NETs. This must be kept in mind when discussing the role of anti-angiogenic strategies in the treatment of NETs. Nevertheless, several targeted therapies, with direct or indirect anti-angiogenic properties, including anti-VEGF antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus), have recently proven to be of clinical benefit. In addition, some drugs already used in NET treatment, such as somatostatin analogues and interferon-α, may also have anti-angiogenic properties. The main challenges for the next future are to validate biomarkers for the selection of patients and the prediction of their response to refine the indications of anti-angiogenic targeted therapies and to overcome the mechanisms of resistance, which explain the limited duration of action of most of these treatments.
    Neuroendocrinology 04/2012; 97(1). DOI:10.1159/000338371 · 4.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Temozolomide (TMZ) was first known to be useful as a radiosensitiser in both primary brain tumours like glioblastoma multiforme and oligodendroglioma. Later, TMZ proved its efficacy in the treatment of melanoma. Multiple publications have demonstrated the benefit of TMZ in terms of efficacy and tolerance (used as mono-therapy or as adjuvant chemotherapy) compared to the "gold standard" treatment of this kind of tumours. Furthermore, several recent clinical trials have shown the particular importance of TMZ in other types of cancer. This publication deals with the use of TMZ in cancers which are not formal indications for TMZ (excluding glioblastoma multiforme, oligodendroglioma and melanoma). It also includes a necessary review of recent literature about the role of TMZ in the treatment of brain metastases, lymphomas, refractory leukaemia, neuroendocrine tumours, pituitary tumours, Ewing's sarcoma, primitive neuroectodermal tumours, lung cancer and other tumours.
    Cancer Treatment Reviews 07/2012; 39(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.06.002 · 7.59 Impact Factor
Show more