Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327907›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2017

A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of everolimus in combination with pasireotide LAR or everolimus alone in advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: COOPERATE-2 trial.

M H Kulke, P Ruszniewski, E Van Cutsem, C Lombard-Bohas, J W Valle, W W De Herder, M Pavel, E Degtyarev, J C Brase, L Bubuteishvili-Pacaud and 8 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 16 institutions in 11 countries.

M H KulkeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA.
P RuszniewskiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Pancreatology University of Paris VII and Beaujon Hospital, Paris, France.
E Van CutsemDepartment of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg/Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
C Lombard-BohasDepartment of Medical Oncology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France.
J W ValleDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Manchester/The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
W W De HerderDepartment of Endocrine Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M PavelDepartment of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Charité University of Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
E DegtyarevDepartment of Oncology, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
J C BraseDepartment of Oncology, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
L Bubuteishvili-PacaudDepartment of Oncology, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
M VoiDepartment of Oncology, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, USA.
R SalazarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
I BorbathDepartment of Gastroenterology Saint-Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
N FazioDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
D SmithDepartment of Oncology, St. Andrew Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
J CapdevilaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
R P RiechelmannDepartment of Oncology, Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J C YaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USErasmus MC · NLEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITHôpital Edouard Herriot · FRInstitut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge · ESInstituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo · BRKU Leuven · BENovartis (United States) · USSt Andrew’s Hospital · AUThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity of Manchester · GBVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ES

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDisease ProgressionEverolimusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsSomatostatinSurvival AnalysisYoung AdultEverolimuspasireotideSomatostatineverolimusinsulin-like growth factor-1mTOR signalingpancreatic neuroendocrine tumorspasireotide LARsomatostatin analog

Identifiers

PMID28327907
PMCPMC7360140
OpenAlexW2593336519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.