Comparison of human lung cancer/SCID mouse tumor xenografts and cell culture growth with patient clinical outcomes

Leukemic cell growth in SCID mice has been reported as a predictor of disease relapse. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding xenograft growth and clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Seventy-nine specimens from patients with NSCLC were either subcutaneously implanted into SCID mice and/or placed in tissue culture. Retrospective chart review was correlated with stage, histology, necrosis, disease-free interval, and survival. Tumor xenografts were successfully established with 17 of 37 (46%) tumor biopsy tissues. Thirteen of 59 (22%) specimens grew in cell culture. Patients whose tumors grew in SCID mice had no difference in survival compared to those with no growth (n=20, p=0.42). Median survival was 36 months in 13 patients whose tumors grew in cell culture compared to 39 months in 46 patients without growth. Eight of 12 (67%) patients with metastasis showed SCID/human xenograft growth, whereas nine of 25 (36%) without metastases did so (p=0.08). Growth of tumor cells in vitro occurred in 11 of 31 (35%) adenocarcinomas, one of 25 (4%) squamous cell carcinomas, and one of three (33%) large cell carcinomas (p=0.02). Well or moderately differentiated tumors grew in cell culture in only two of 22 (9%), whereas poorly or undifferentiated tumors grew in 11 of 32 (34%) cases (p=0.03). We conclude that neither the ability of a tumor to engraft and grow in SCID mice nor its ability to grow in vitro in cell culture is a reliable predictor of disease outcome or survival in patients with NSCLC. The ability to propagate tumors in vitro appears to be more dependent upon the histological type of tumor and its degree of differentiation.     

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy implementation and results in a predominantly gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor population: A two-year experience in a nonuniversity setting

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, but the incidence and prevalence of NETs are increasing in the United States. While surgery is the preferred treatment for NETs, it is not a viable option for metastatic disease. Lutathera (¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE) is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NETs in adults. There is limited information on GEP-NET treatment responses to Lutathera.Our institution launched a peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) service line using Lutathera with involvement from a multidisciplinary team and complete collaboration between hospital administration and clinical providers. A prospective registry study was also established in order to collect patient demographics and clinical data regarding the treatment of GEP primary NETs with Lutathera.Between August 2018 and July 2020, 35 GEP-NET patients were treated with Lutathera, of which 65.71% received 4 complete cycles and 25.71% received 3 cycles; 5.71% and 2.86% received 2 and 1 cycles of PRRT, respectively. Most adverse events during the course of our study were low grade using the common terminology criteria for adverse events system. Of the patients who completed all 4 cycles: 22% showed partial response to Lutathera, 44% showed stable disease, and 13% showed disease progression based on a qualitative assessment of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging.From our experience, Lutathera was well tolerated in patients with GEP-NET. Additional studies are needed to examine long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with GEP-NET treatment as well as financial considerations for hospitals embarking on a PRRT program.     

Pericardial catheter sclerosis versus surgical procedures for pericardial effusions in cancer patients

BACKGROUND: Approximately 21% of patients with advanced malignancies have cardiac or pericardial involvement with tumor. Controversy exists regarding the optimal approach to the pericardial space when hemodynamic compromise due to effusions occurs. METHODS: A six-year retrospective review of 59 cancer patients with pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had subxiphoid pericardial window (SXPW) alone (Group A), 5 had pericardial catheter drainage (PCD) followed by a SXPW (Group B), 10 had PCD with sclerosis (Group C), 5 had PCD alone (Group D), 2 had PCD with pericardial-pleural window (Group E), and one had pericardial-peritoneal window (Group F). The method of procedure, complications, number of hospital and ICU days, cytological or pathologic evidence of malignancy, solid versus hematological tumors, and survival were analyzed. The median survival for those patients in group C was one month compared to 4 months for Group A and 6 months for Group B. Essentially, results were similar regardless of method performed with the exception that professional and hospital charges averaged $4830 for SXPW compared to $1625 for PCD. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial catheter drainage and sclerosis provides a viable option for the treatment of pericardial effusions in selected cancer patients at markedly reduced cost and patient discomfort.