Safety and Efficacy of 177 Lu-DOTATATE in Neuroendocrine Tumor Patients With Extensive Bone Disease

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 177 Lu-DOTATATE in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and extensive bone metastases, that is, more than 50% of the skeleton involved.

Method: A single-center retrospective analysis was performed in 30 patients (13 women and 17 men, mean age, 60 years; range, 35-77 years) undergoing 177 Lu-DOTATATE therapy. Patients had progressive metastatic NETs with extensive skeletal metastases (>50% skeletal involvement seen on baseline 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT). The average administered activity was 7.308 (SD, 0.02) GBq per cycle with average treatment interval of 15 weeks. Survival analyses (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival), radiological response assessment, toxicity assessment, and health-related quality of life (QoL) was performed.

Results: Overall, 26 patients completed 4 cycles, and 4 patients had less than 4 cycles of 177 Lu-DOTATATE. One patient (3%) did not complete treatment because of hematological toxicity. The estimated median PFS and median overall survival were calculated at 27 and 35 months, respectively. End-of-treatment radiological assessment showed partial response in 5 patients (17%), stable disease in 20 patients (66%), and radiological progressive disease in 3 patients (10%). Clinical progression was seen in a further 2 patients (7%).The incidence of grade 3/4 bone marrow toxicity was 10%. No patient had grade 3/4 peptide receptor radionuclide therapy-related nephrotoxicity. There was overall improvement in global QoL score (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Gastrointestinal NET-21) ( P = 0.019).

Conclusion: 177 Lu-DOTATATE seems to have satisfactory therapeutic outcome in patients with advanced metastatic NET with extensive bone disease, with reasonable PFS and significant improvement in the global health-related QoL. The bone marrow toxicity was within the accepted range. Increasing the interval between cycles does not seem to reduce efficacy and may reduce toxicity, ensuring the bone marrow has sufficient time to recover between cycles.