Loss of Somatostatin Receptor 2 (SSTR2) expression and rising CXC Chemokine Receptor Type 4 (CXCR4) expression are associated with dedifferentiation in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). In NET, CXCR4 expression is associated with enhanced metastatic and invasive potential and worse prognosis but might be a theragnostic target. Likewise, activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling may promote a more aggressive phenotype in NET. We hypothesized an interaction of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway with CXCR4 expression and function in NET. The NET cell lines BON-1, QGP-1, and MS-18 were exposed to Wnt inhibitors (5-aza-CdR, quercetin, and niclosamide) or the Wnt activator LiCl. The expressions of Wnt pathway genes and of CXCR4 were studied by qRT-PCR, Western blot, and immunohistochemistry. The effects of Wnt modulators on uptake of the CXCR4 ligand [⁶⁸Ga] Pentixafor were measured. The Wnt activator LiCl induced upregulation of CXCR4 and Wnt target gene expression. Treatment with the Wnt inhibitors had opposite effects. LiCl significantly increased [⁶⁸Ga] Pentixafor uptake, while treatment with Wnt inhibitors decreased radiopeptide uptake. Wnt pathway modulation influences CXCR4 expression and function in NET cell lines. Wnt modulation might be a tool to enhance the efficacy of CXCR4-directed therapies in NET or to inhibit CXCR4-dependent proliferative signaling. The underlying mechanisms for the interaction of the Wnt pathway with CXCR4 expression and function have yet to be clarified.

Background: Somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) are pivotal diagnostic and therapeutic targets in well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). SSTR-directed treatment strategies rely on sufficient SSTR2 expression. Thus, receptor loss during dedifferentiation limits therapeutic efficacy. Preclinical data suggest pharmacologic modulation of SSTRs’ expression. However, there are no robust data on the effect of NEN-specific systemic treatments on SSTRs’ expression and function. Methods: We systematically evaluated the effects of six systemic agents commonly used in NEN therapy—isplatin, etoposide, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), streptozotocin (STZ), temozolomide (TMZ), and everolimus—on SSTR2 and SSTR5 expression, as well as on uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATOC, in BON-1 and QGP-1 cells, as well as the MS-18 cell line. Analyses included qRT-PCR, Western blotting, immunohistochemistry, and radiopeptide uptake assays. Results: Systemic agents modulated SSTR expression and radioligand uptake in a drug- and cell line-dependent manner. Etoposide consistently upregulated SSTR2 expression and significantly increased radioligand uptake across all three cell lines. TMZ enhanced SSTR2 expression and uptake in BON-1 cells, but reduced uptake in QGP-1 and MS-18 cells. In contrast, 5-FU, STZ, cisplatin, and everolimus showed heterogeneous, compound- and cell line-specific effects on SSTR2 expression and ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATOC uptake, including both up- and downregulation depending on the model. Conclusions: All agents under investigation affect SSTR expression in vitro, while etoposide is identified as the most consistent enhancer of SSTR2’s expression and function across cellular NEN models. Our findings highlight both the potential and the risks of systemic therapy-induced receptor modulation and therefore support further investigation of treatment sequencing strategies to optimize SSTR-targeted approaches. However, further studies are required to translate these observations to a clinical setting.