Extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP-NECs) are lethal cancers with limited treatment options. Identification of contributing factors to the observed heterogeneity of clinical outcomes within the EP-NEC family is warranted, to enable identification of effective treatments. A multicentre retrospective study investigated potential differences in “real-world” treatment/survival outcomes between small-cell (SC) versus (vs.) non-SC EP-NECs. One-hundred and seventy patients were included: 77 (45.3%) had SC EP-NECs and 93 (54.7%) had non-SC EP-NECs. Compared to the SC subgroup, the non-SC subgroup had the following features: (1) a lower mean Ki-67 index (69.3% vs. 78.7%; p = 0.002); (2) a lower proportion of cases with a Ki-67 index of ≥55% (73.9% vs. 88.7%; p = 0.025); (3) reduced sensitivity to first-line platinum/etoposide (objective response rate: 31.6% vs. 55.1%, p = 0.015; and disease control rate; 59.7% vs. 79.6%, p = 0.027); (4) worse progression-free survival (PFS) (adjusted-HR = 1.615, p = 0.016) and overall survival (OS) (adjusted-HR = 1.640, p = 0.015) in the advanced setting. Within the advanced EP-NEC cohort, subgroups according to morphological subtype and Ki-67 index (<55% vs. ≥55%) had significantly different PFS (adjusted-p = 0.021) and OS (adjusted-p = 0.051), with the non-SC subgroup with a Ki-67 index of <55% and non-SC subgroup with a Ki-67 index of ≥55% showing the best and worst outcomes, respectively. To conclude, the morphological subtype of EP-NEC provides complementary information to the Ki-67 index and may aid identification of patients who could benefit from alternative first-line treatment strategies to platinum/etoposide.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis and significant symptom burden. This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate expectations and priorities of patients with advanced PDAC and their clinicians through a study survey and two quality of life (QoL) questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and PAN26) at three time-points: baseline (T1), before (T2) and after (T3) their 1st on-treatment CT scan. Over a 1-year period, 106 patients were approached, 71 patients and 12 clinicians were recruited. Choosing between treatment options, patients prioritised: 54% overall survival (OS), 26% balance between side-effects and OS, 15% could not choose and 5% favoured symptom control. These were significantly different from the clinician’s answers (p < 0.001). Patients who prioritised OS had higher symptom burden (p = 0.03) and shorter OS compared to those who prioritised balance (p = 0.01). Most (86%) patients had personal goals they wanted to reach; clinicians knew of these in 12% of instances. Patient and clinicians’ views regarding survival improvement from chemotherapy were significantly different: 81% of clinicians and 12% of patients thought 1–2 or 3–6 months extension, 58% of patients and 0% physicians thought 1–5 or >5 years (p < 0.001). At T1, patients had low QoL and worst symptoms were: ‘Future worries’, ‘planning of activities’, fatigue and pain. Patients were willing to accept significantly higher amounts of side-effects as a trade-off for extra time, than clinicians thought (p < 0.001). Overall, there are significant discrepancies between patient and clinicians’ views about the aims, priorities and expected extension of life.

Background: The role of tumour genomic profiling in the clinical management of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (WdNETs) is unclear. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) may be a useful surrogate for tumour tissue when the latter is insufficient for analysis. Methods: Patients diagnosed with WdNETs underwent ctDNA genomic profiling (FoundationLiquid^®); non-WdNETs (paraganglioma, goblet cell or poorly-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma) were used for comparison. The aim was to determine the rate of: test failure (primary end-point), “pathological alterations” (PAs) (secondary end-point) and patients for whom ctDNA analysis impacted management (secondary end-point). Results: Forty-five patients were included. A total of 15 patients with WdNETs (18 ctDNA samples) were eligible: 8 females (53.3%), median age 63.2 years (range 23.5–86.8). Primary: small bowel (8; 53.3%), pancreas (5; 33.3%), gastric (1; 6.7%) and unknown primary (1; 6.7%); grade (G)1 (n = 5; 33.3%), G2 (9; 60.0%) and G3 (1; 6.7%); median Ki-67: 5% (range 1–30). A total of 30 patients with non-WdNETs (34 ctDNA samples) were included. Five WdNETs samples (27.78%) failed analysis (vs. 17.65% in non-WdNETs; p-value 0.395). Of the 13 WdNET samples with successful ctDNA analyses, PAs were detected in 6 (46.15%) (vs. 82.14% in non-WdNETs; p-value 0.018). In WdNETs, the PA rate was independent of concomitant administration anti-cancer systemic therapies (2/7; 28.57% vs. 4/6; 66.67%; p-value 0.286) at the time of the ctDNA analysis: four, one and one samples had one, two and three PAs, respectively. These were: CDKN2A mutation (mut) (one sample), CHEK2mut (one), TP53mut (one), FGFR2 amplification (one), IDH2mut (one), CTNNB1mut (one), NF1mut (one) and PALB2mut (one). None were targetable (0%) or impacted clinical management (0%). There was a lower maximum mutant allele frequency (mMAF) in WdNETs (mean 0.33) vs. non-WdNETs (mean 26.99), even though differences did not reach statistical significance (p-value 0.0584). Conclusions: Although feasible, mutation-based ctDNA analysis was of limited clinical utility for patients with advanced WdNETs. The rates of PAs and mMAFs were higher in non-WdNETs. While patients with WdNETs could still be offered genomic profiling (if available and reimbursed), it is important to manage patients’ expectations regarding the likelihood of the results impacting their treatment.

Background: Brain metastases (BMs) in patients with extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms (EP–NENs) are rare, and limited clinical information is available. The aim of this study was to detail the clinicopathological features, management and outcomes in patients with EP–NENs who developed BMs. Methods: A retrospective single-centre analysis of consecutive patients with EP–NENs (August 2004–February 2020) was conducted. Median overall survival (OS)/survival from BMs diagnosis was estimated (Kaplan–Meier). Results: Of 730 patients, 17 (1.9%) had BMs, median age 61 years (range 15–77); 8 (53%) male, unknown primary NEN site: 40%. Patients with BMs had grade 3 (G3) EP–NENs 11 (73%), G2: 3 (20%), G1: 1 (7%). Eight (53%) had poorly differentiated NENs, 6 were well-differentiated and 1 was not recorded. Additionally, 2 (13%) patients had synchronous BMs at diagnosis, whilst 13 (87%) developed BMs metachronously. The relative risk of developing BMs was 7.48 in patients with G3 disease vs. G1 + G2 disease (p = 0.0001). Median time to the development of BMs after NEN diagnosis: 15.9 months (range 2.5–139.5). Five patients had a solitary BM, 12 had multiple BMs. Treatment of BMs were surgery (n = 3); radiotherapy (n = 5); 4: whole brain radiotherapy, 1: conformal radiotherapy (orbit). Nine (53%) had best supportive care. Median OS from NEN diagnosis was 23.6 months [95% CI 15.2–31.3]; median time to death from BMs diagnosis was 3.0 months [95% CI 0.0–8.3]. Conclusion: BMs in patients with EP–NENs are rare and of increased risk in G3 vs. G1 + G2 EP–NENs. Survival outcomes are poor, and a greater understanding is needed to improve therapeutic outcomes.