Efficacy of temozolomide combined with capecitabine (CAPTEM) on refractory prolactinomas as assessed using an ex vivo 3D spheroid assay

Temozolomide Treatment in Refractory Pituitary Adenomas and Pituitary Carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Temozolomide (TMZ), a nonclassical alkylating agent, possesses lipophilic properties that allow it to cross the blood-brain barrier, making it active within the central nervous system. Furthermore, the adverse reactions of the TMZ are relatively mild, which is why it is currently recommended as a first-line chemotherapy drug for refractory pituitary adenomas (RPAs) and pituitary carcinomas (PCs).

SUMMARY

Systematic evaluations indicate a radiological response rate of 41% and a hormonal response rate of 53%, underscoring TMZ clinical efficacy, particularly when combined with radiotherapy. Functional tumors demonstrate a higher response rate compared to nonfunctional tumors. While the optimal duration of TMZ treatment remains undetermined, studies suggest that longer therapy durations may lead to better prognoses. Additionally, prior to TMZ administration, it is advisable to conduct immunohistochemical analysis of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase, MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, PMS2, and N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase to assess the potential impact of repair mechanisms such as direct repair, mismatch repair pathway, and base excision repair on TMZ treatment. The efficacy of TMZ analogs, combined TMZ therapies, and TMZ with nanomaterials following TMZ treatment failure remains uncertain.

KEY MESSAGES

The involvement of experienced multidisciplinary pituitary teams in all management decisions for RPAs/PCs patients is essential.

Metastatic pituitary neuroendocrine neoplasms: A case report of a malignant prolactinoma

We report a rare clinical case of a malignant prolactinoma in which the exponential increase of prolactin levels with minimal tumor growth and no response to treatment led to diagnosis of abdominal, thoracic, and vertebral metastases.

Update on Current Evidence for the Diagnosis and Management of Nonfunctioning Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors

Pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) are the third most frequently diagnosed intracranial tumors, with nonfunctioning PitNETs (nfPitNETs) accounting for 30% of all pituitary tumors and representing the most common type of macroPitNETs. NfPitNETs are usually benign tumors with no evidence of hormone oversecretion except for hyperprolactinemia secondary to pituitary stalk compression. Due to this, they do not typically present with clinical syndromes like acromegaly, Cushing's disease or hyperthyroidism and instead are identified incidentally on imaging or from symptoms of mass effects (headache, vision changes, apoplexy). With the lack of effective medical interventions, first-line treatment is transsphenoidal surgical resection, however, nfPitNETs often have supra- or parasellar extension, and total resection of the tumor is often not possible, resulting in residual tumor regrowth or reoccurrence. While functional PitNETs can be easily followed for recurrence using hormonal biomarkers, there is no similar parameter to predict recurrence in nfPitNETs, hence delaying early recognition and timely management. Therefore, there is a need to identify prognostic biomarkers that can be used for patient surveillance and as therapeutic targets. This review focuses on summarizing the current evidence on nfPitNETs, with a special focus on potential new biomarkers and therapeutics.

Aggressive Pituitary Tumors and Pituitary Carcinomas: From Pathology to Treatment

Aggressive pituitary tumors (APTs) and pituitary carcinomas (PCs) are heterogeneous with regard to clinical presentation, proliferative markers, clinical course, and response to therapy. Half of them show an aggressive course only many years after the first apparently benign presentation. APTs and PCs share several properties, but a Ki67 index greater than or equal to 10% and extensive p53 expression are more prevalent in PCs. Mutations in TP53 and ATRX are the most common genetic alterations; their detection might be of value for early identification of aggressiveness. Treatment requires a multimodal approach including surgery, radiotherapy, and drugs. Temozolomide is the recommended first-line chemotherapy, with response rates of about 40%. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as second-line treatment in PCs, with currently no evidence for a superior effect of dual therapy compared to monotherapy with PD-1 blockers. Bevacizumab has resulted in partial response (PR) in few patients; tyrosine kinase inhibitors and everolimus have generally not been useful. The effect of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy is limited as well. Management of APT/PC is challenging and should be discussed within an expert team with consideration of clinical and pathological findings, age, and general condition of the patient. Considering that APT/PCs are rare, new therapies should preferably be evaluated in shared standardized protocols. Prognostic and predictive markers to guide treatment decisions are needed and are the scope of ongoing research.

Aggressive pituitary tumors (PitNETs)

The majority of anterior pituitary tumors behave benignly, that is, they grow slowly and do not metastasize, and were therefore called adenomas. However, they would frequently invade adjacent structures, leading to recurrence. One of the misleading assumptions in their previous classification was the simplistic distinction made between adenoma and carcinoma. In the upcoming WHO 2022 classification, a new terminology will be introduced: pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) which is consistent with that used for other neuroendocrine neoplasms. In general, aggressive PitNETs are invasive and proliferative tumors with frequent recurrences, resistant to conventional treatments, and yet virtually without metastases. At present, no single morphological or histological marker has been shown as yet to reliably predict their aggressive behavior. In terms of treatment, temozolomide (TMZ) had been considered promising and the sole therapeutic option for aggressive and malignant PitNETs following failure of standard therapies. However, recent reports have disclosed that TMZ does not provide long-term control of many aggressive PitNETs. A further multidisciplinary approach is necessary for both reliable prediction and successful management of aggressive PitNETs.

Temozolomide in aggressive pituitary tumours and pituitary carcinomas

Survival for patients with aggressive pituitary tumours (APT) and pituitary carcinomas (PC) has significantly improved following the increasing use of temozolomide (TMZ) since the first reports of response in 2006. TMZ was established as first line chemotherapy for APT/PC in the 2018 ESE guidelines on the management of APT/PC. There is no controversy over its use as salvage therapy however there is increasing interest in exploring TMZ use earlier in the treatment algorithm for APT/PC. Overall response rates as reported in systematic reviews are around 40% but stable disease in another 25% illustrates the clinical effectiveness of TMZ. Response is higher among functional compared to non-functional tumours. Where maximal radiation thresholds have not been reached in a patient, combination radiotherapy and TMZ appears more effective. Whether combination TMZ and capecitabine (CAPTEM) offers increased benefit remains uncertain particularly given added toxicity. O6-methyl guanine DNA methyl transferase (MGMT) status is important in determining response to treatment, although examination via immunohistochemistry versus PCR-based promoter-methylation analysis remains somewhat controversial. Optimal duration of TMZ treatment has still not been determined although longer treatment courses have been associated with increased progression-free survival. Treatment options following disease progression after TMZ remain unclear but include a second course of TMZ, immunotherapy and targeted oncological agents such as bevacizumab and lapatinib as well as peptide receptor radionuclide treatment (PRRT). An experienced pituitary multidisciplinary team is essential to all management decisions in patients with APT/PC.

Temozolomide and Capecitabine Treatment for an Aggressive Somatotroph Pituitary Tumor: A Case Report and Literature Review

Aggressive somatotroph pituitary tumor that causes acromegaly is extremely rare and resists conventional treatments such as multiple surgeries, radiotherapies, and various types of somatostatin analogs. Here, we propose a novel treatment option for these rare cases by discussing our case and reviewing the literature. We experienced an aggressive somatotroph tumor in a 52-year-old woman with acromegaly. Not only could a complete remission of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) not be obtained, but the tumor continued to grow and eventually recurred around the brainstem despite multidisciplinary treatments. We employed immunohistochemistry and a three-dimensional (3D) spheroid ex vivo assay to determine the best treatment option for this case. Although histology showed strong O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase expression and high Ki-67 labeling index (22%), temozolomide (TMZ) combined with capecitabine (CAPTEM) treatment was performed based on the results of the patient-derived 3D spheroid ex vivo assay, which predicted more effective treatment with CAPTEM than with TMZ alone. Consequently, GH and IGF-1 levels were restored to normal range with remarkable tumor shrinkage after CAPTEM treatment. To the best of our knowledge, there have been even very few reports describing successful treatment for such aggressive and refractory somatotroph tumors and this is the first report showing the effectiveness of CAPTEM on refractory somatotroph tumor both ex vivo and in vivo.

Pituitary carcinoma: reclassification and implications in the NET schema

The entity known as pituitary carcinoma has been traditionally defined as a tumor of adenohypophysial cells that metastasizes systemically or craniospinally independent of the histological appearance of the lesion. Reported cases of pituitary carcinoma have clinically and histologically resembled their non-metastatic counterparts that were classified as adenomas; the majority of cases were initially diagnosed as adenomas, and with tumor progression and spread, the diagnosis was changed to carcinoma. This classification has been challenged since the definition of malignancy in most organs is not based only on metastatic spread. The extent of local invasion resulting in an inability to completely resect an adenohypophysial tumor can have serious consequences that can cause harm and are therefore not benign. To address this dilemma, it was proposed that pituitary tumors be classified as neuroendocrine tumors. This change in nomenclature is totally appropriate since these tumors are composed of classical neuroendocrine cells; as with other neuroendocrine tumors, they have variable behavior that can be indolent but can involve metastasis. With the new nomenclature, there is no requirement for a distinction between adenomas and carcinomas. Moreover, the WHO/IARC has provided an overarching classification for neuroendocrine neoplasms at all body sites; in this new classification, the term 'neuroendocrine carcinoma' is reserved for poorly differentiated high-grade malignancies that are clinically, morphologically and genetically distinct from well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. It remains to be determined if there are true pituitary neuroendocrine carcinomas.