Abstract
Context
Treatment options for advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) are still limited. In recent years, antitumor effects of cannabinoids have been reported; however, there are only very limited data available in NETs or PPGLs.
Objective
Investigation of the effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on patient-derived human NET/PPGL primary cultures and on NET/PPGL cell lines.
Methods
We established primary cultures derived from 46 different patients with PPGLs (n = 35) or NETs (n = 11) who underwent tumor resection at 2 centers. Treatment of patient primary cultures with clinically relevant doses (5 µM) and slightly higher doses (10 µM) of CBD was performed.
Results
We found opposing effects of 5 µM CBD: significant antitumor effects in 5/35 (14%) and significant tumor-promoting effects in 6/35 (17%) of PPGL primary cultures. In terms of antitumor effects, cluster 2-related PPGLs showed significantly stronger responsivity to CBD compared to cluster 1-related PPGLs (P = .042). Of the cluster 2-related tumors, NF1 PPGLs showed the strongest responsivity (4/5 PPGL primary cultures with a significant decrease in cell viability were NF1-mutated). We also found opposing effects of 10 µM CBD in PPGLs and NETs: significant antitumor effects in 9/33 of PPGL (27%) and 3/11 of NET (27%) primary cultures and significant tumor-promoting effects in 6/33 of PPGL (18%) and 2/11 of NET (18%) primary cultures.
Conclusion
We suggest a potential novel treatment option for some NETs/PPGLs but also provide evidence for caution when applying cannabinoids as supportive therapy for pain or appetite management to cancer patients and possibly as health supplements.
Keywords: neuroendocrine tumor, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma, cannabinoids, cannabidiol, CBD
Neuroendocrine neoplasms are a heterogeneous group of tumors that include neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the gastroenteropancreatic system (GEP-NETs) as well as tumors of the adrenal medulla [pheochromocytomas (PCCs)] or the sympathetic or parasympathetic paraganglia [paragangliomas (PGLs)], collectively referred to as PPGLs.
GEP-NETs are neoplasms with an increasing incidence of 7 per 100 000 population per year (1). Around 40% to 45% of GEP-NETs have already spread to other organs at the time of initial diagnosis, requiring systemic treatment modalities (2). The 5-year survival rates of patients with metastatic NETs are only 38% to 50% for pancreatic NETs and 43% to 69% for ileal NETs (1, 3, 4), and surgery is considered the only curative treatment option. The only established systemic therapy options for GEP-NETs include “cold” somatostatin analogs (for tumors with low proliferative potential, Ki-67 ≤ 10%) (5, 6), somatostatin receptor 2-guided radionuclide therapy (7), targeted therapies with the mTORC1-inhibitor everolimus (8, 9), the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (10), or systemic chemotherapy protocols such as temozolomide/capecitabine or streptozotocin/5-fluorouracil (11).
In contrast to GEP-NETs, PPGLs are rare, with a combined annual incidence rate of 0.04 to 0.21 per 100 000 population (12). These tumors show the highest rate of heritability among all endocrine tumors. Around 70% of PPGLs can be assigned to 1 of the 3 main molecular clusters according to their somatic or germline pathogenic variants (PVs): pseudohypoxia-related cluster 1 (1A or 1B), kinase signaling-related cluster 2, and Wnt-signaling-related cluster 3 (13, 14). Cluster 1 PPGL show PVs in SDHA/B/C/D, HIF2A/EPAS1, and VHL genes, among others (13, 14), and are characterized by increased expression and stabilization of HIF-2α, which is associated with elevated disease aggressiveness (15). Cluster 2 PPGL show PVs in the NF1, RET, TMEM127, MAX, and HRAS genes, among others (13, 14). Cluster 3 PVs are associated with aggressive behavior and high metastatic risk (16, 17). Patients can receive personalized diagnostics and follow-up according to their genetic profile, since the clusters are associated with different biochemical and clinical presentations and prognostic differences (13).
Therapy, however, is not yet personalized for PPGL patients. This is problematic since each PPGL has the potential to spread to distant sites and approximately 10% to 15% of PCCs and 35% to 40% of PGLs metastasize (18-22). The median overall survival of patients with metastatic PPGLs has been reported to be 7 years (23), with a 5-year mortality rate of 37% in a large meta-analysis (24). Metastatic PPGLs are, moreover, difficult to treat, and the only Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy available, high-specific-activity [131I]-MIBG therapy, was withdrawn in the first quarter of 2024 due to high manufacturing costs.
There are, therefore, only limited treatment options available for both metastatic NETs and PPGLs, such that there is an urgent need for novel and innovative therapeutic approaches.
Cannabinoids are lipophilic substances that act as ligands for the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and/or CB2, which are part of the endocannabinoid system (ECS). The ECS includes endocannabinoids, as well as the enzymes responsible for their synthesis, transport, and degradation (25, 26). In addition to endocannabinoids, a multitude of plant-based and synthetically obtained compounds can interact with the ECS. Cannabis is the most prominent representative of cannabinoid-producing plants. More than 100 phytocannabinoids have been isolated from cannabis, including cannabidiol (CBD) and (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the latter being the primary psychoactive component. CBD and Δ9-THC constitute the active substances in nabiximols (Sativex®), which is approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis-induced spasticity in over 25 countries (27). CBD as a single substance (Epidiolex®) is currently Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved for the treatment of seizures in the rare cases of Lennox-Gastaut or Dravet syndromes (27).
In recent years, the direct antitumor effects of cannabinoids have been supported by numerous preclinical studies on several types of cancer, especially on cancers of ectodermal origin such as glioma, melanoma, and Ewing's sarcoma (28-34). These effects are mediated by different molecular pathways through cannabinoid receptors (Fig. 1). Recently, for the first time, positive results of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical phase 1b trial on the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme with a CBD/THC combination have been published (NCT 01812616): 12 patients with glioblastoma multiforme were treated with the CBD/THC combination nabiximols in addition to the established chemotherapy with temozolomide and compared to a control group (n = 9 patients) who received only temozolomide. The 1-year survival rate was significantly higher (83%) in the nabiximols group compared to the control group (44%) (P = .042), while the median survival time in the nabiximols-treated group was 662 days vs 369 days in the control group (35).
Figure 1.
Simplified scheme of molecular anticancer pathways mediated by cannabinoids through cannabinoid receptors. ↑ activation; ⊥ inhibition. Created with Biorender.com.
Notably, due to their developmental history (arising from stem cells originating from neuroectodermal tissues), gliomas, PPGLs and NETs share a wide variety of molecular features, including germline and somatic PVs in critical tumor suppressor genes such as NF1 (36, 37). These alterations result in overlapping phenotypes associated with frequent upregulation of PI3K-Akt-mTOR- and Ras-Raf-Mek-Erk-signaling. It might therefore be expected that tumors displaying similar molecular profiles would be susceptible to similar treatment approaches.
Additionally, there is now a growing discussion concerning the legalization of recreational cannabis use in many countries involving some US states and parts of Europe, including Germany where cannabis was legalized in 2024. Moreover, nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as CBD oil, are being increasingly advised as health supplements. Furthermore, Δ9-THC (Dronabinol®) is officially approved for use in tumor patients with cancer pain, loss of appetite, or loss of weight (27), which are common tumor- or chemotherapy-associated symptoms and signs. This is why, in clinical practice, many PPGL or NET patients inquire about the use of cannabinoids. However, except for a limited number of in vitro studies in rat PCC cells (PC12) (38-40), the effects of cannabinoids in GEP-NETs and PPGLs have not as yet been investigated.
Therefore, we have now evaluated the therapeutic effects of the cannabinoid CBD in PPGL/NET cell lines (MPC, MTT, BON1, QGP-1, NCI-H727, GOT1 cells), MPC cell spheroids, and, most importantly, our previously established patient-derived PPGL primary culture model (36, 37) as well as in our newly established patient-derived NET primary cultures. We performed personalized drug testing in a comparatively large cohort of surgery-derived fresh primary cultures from a total of 35 PPGL patients and 11 NET patients.
Materials and Methods
NET and PPGL Cell Lines
We evaluated CBD in different NET and PPGL cell lines, including the pancreatic carcinoid cell line BON1 (Prof. R. Göke, Marburg, Germany), pancreatic islet cell line QGP-1 (JCRB Cell Banc, Osaka, Japan), human lung carcinoid cell line NCI-H727 (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA), midgut carcinoid cell line GOT1 (41) (Prof. O. Nilsson, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Göteborg, Sweden), and murine pheochromocytoma cell lines MPC and MTT (Prof. K. Pacak, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). The cell lines were cultured in DMEM/F12 (BON1 and QGP-1) or RPMI 1640 medium (NCI-H727, MPC, MTT, GOT1) supplemented with amphotericin B (0.4%), penicillin/streptomycin (1%), fetal bovine serum (10%), apotransferrin (5 mg/mL) (GOT1), and insulin (0.135 IE/mL) (GOT1).
MPC Spheroid Assay
MPC cells with stable expression of HIF-2α (MPCmCherry H2A) and the corresponding control cells without HIF-2α expression (MPCmCherry control) were used to generate 3D tumor cell spheroids as previously described (42, 43). For single treatment, spheroids were treated with 5 or 10 µM CBD or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as control at day 4 after seeding. For fractionated treatment, spheroids were treated at day 4, 8, 11, and 15 after seeding. Spheroid growth was investigated 18 days after seeding as previously described (42).
Human NET and PPGL Primary Cultures
Patients with PPGLs or NETs were included in this study based on participation in the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors (ENS@T) or in the Exzellenz-Netzwerk für Neuroendokrine Tumoren und Hypophysen- und Nebennierenerkrankungen (NeoExNET), respectively, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The use of the PPGL primary cultures as part of ENS@T was approved by the Ethics Committee of LMU Munich (Projekt-Nr. 379-10) and by the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zurich under the reference number BASEC 2017-00771. The use of NET primary cultures for our purpose as part of NeoExNET was approved by the Ethics Committee of LMU Munich (Projekt-Nr. 152-10) and by the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zurich under the reference number BASEC 2017-00950.
We have previously established a pipeline for the isolation and processing of patient-derived PPGL primary cultures, and the methods have been described in detail (44, 45). For patient-derived NET primary cultures, we have now established a similar pipeline. In brief, fresh tumor tissue samples from patients undergoing resection of a PPGL or NET at the University Hospitals of Munich and Zurich were collected. The tumor tissues were then processed into small pieces, isolated, and suspended in culture medium (DMEM/F12 or RPMI 1640, both from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Cell Viability Assay
Primary cells or cell lines were counted, seeded into 96-well plates, and incubated for 72 hours so that adhesion was guaranteed. They were then treated with CBD for 72 hours while DMSO was used as control. Subsequently, cell viabilities were estimated by Cell Titer Blue® cell viability assay (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), as previously described (44). Each cell viability experiment was performed at least in triplicate. Additionally, the cell line results consist of 2 to 3 independently performed cell viability experiments.
Clinically Relevant Doses of CBD
We tested the naturally occurring cannabinoid CBD (Tocris Bioscience, Bristol, UK) in NET and PPGL cell lines, MPC cell spheroids, and patient primary cultures. For these trials, we used clinically relevant doses (5 µM) and doses close to clinically relevant doses (10 µM). These drug concentrations were chosen based on plasma concentrations measured in patients during therapy. For CBD, patient plasma concentrations were found to be between 0.9 µM and 2.5 µM after application of single ascending doses of CBD and up to 4.4 µM after application of multiple doses (46).
Genetic Testing
For patients with PPGLs, germline and somatic genetic testing was performed, and the variants found were classified, as previously described (45, 47-49). Germline PVs were identified in the respective centers of human genetics as part of routine clinical practice. Somatic testing was performed in 9/36 PPGLs: Sequencing of tumor DNA was carried out by the Spanish National Cancer Research Center (Madrid, Spain) by next-generation sequencing, as previously described (48). A custom-designed panel covered both known PPGL susceptibility genes and cancer-associated genes (48). Any PVs detected were then confirmed by Sanger sequencing.
Statistical Analysis
All cell viability results are displayed as the mean values ± SD of at least 3 samples. Student's t-test was used to compare the mean of each cell line or patient-derived primary culture treated with CBD with the mean of the respective control. To detect differences between clusters, comparisons between groups were performed by one-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni multiple comparisons test if parametric criteria were met after testing for normal distribution. In case of nonparametric data, the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Bonferroni correction was performed. A significance threshold of P-value < .05 was used. Statistical calculations were conducted with SPSS Version 29.0.1.1 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA, released 2022).
Results
Evaluation of CBD in PPGL and NET Cell Lines
We performed IC50 calculations for CBD in all cell lines and found IC50 concentrations between 11.7 µM and 23.2 µM after 72 hours of treatment using single ascending doses of 10 to 20 µM CBD and IC50 concentrations between 10.4 µM and 27.5 µM after 144 hours of treatment [Supplementary Table S1 (50)]. For further drug testing in cell lines and primary cultures, we therefore chose, on the one hand, a clinically relevant concentration of 5 µM CBD based on plasma concentrations measured in patients during therapy (46) and, on the other hand, slightly higher concentrations of 10 µM CBD based on the minimum IC50 concentrations identified.
First, we evaluated CBD in PPGL and NET cell lines (Fig. 2). In murine PPGL cell lines with PVs in NF1 (MTT and MPC), in a human pancreatic NET (BON1), and a human pulmonary NET (NCI-H727) cell line, cell viability was significantly suppressed by 10 µM CBD after incubation for 72 hours and/or 144 hours compared to the untreated control (Fig. 2A). However, while human midgut NET (GOT1) cells showed no significant changes in cell viability, human pancreatic NET (QGP-1) cell viability was significantly increased after CBD treatment.
Figure 2.
Cell viability results of different PPGL and NET cell lines and MPC cell spheroid data. (A) Cell viability of PPGL cell lines MPC, MTT, and NET cell lines BON1, QGP-1, NCI-H727, GOT1 after incubation with 10 µM CBD for 72 hours and 144 hours. (B) CBD reduced spheroid growth in a pseudohypoxic model. MPC cell spheroids generated from cells expressing HIF-2α (MPCmCherry H2A) or control cells (MPCmCherry EV) were treated with 5 µM or 10 µM CBD or DMSO as control (single treatment: day 4; fractionated treatment: day 4, 8, 11, 15). Spheroid diameter was determined 18 days after seeding. Four independent experiments (n = 12). Average ± SEM, one-way ANOVA with Bonferoni correction, vs MPCmCherry crtl, DMSO control **P < .01, vs DMSO control of the corresponding cell line #P < .05, ##P < .01.
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; DMSO, dimethyl sulphoxide; NET, neuroendocrine tumor; PPGL, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma.
MPC Cell Spheroids (NF1 PV and HIF2α Expression)
Since the NF1 PV, which is present in the MTT/MPC cells, belongs to cluster 2, we also stably expressed HIF-2α in MPC cells, which is associated with aggressive cluster 1 disease (15). To investigate CBD under these conditions, we treated 3D tumor cell spheroids generated from MPC cells with stable expression of HIF-2α (MPCmCherry H2A) and the corresponding control cells (MPCmCherry control). Single treatment with 10 µM CBD diminished the spheroid diameter significantly, while 5 µM had no effect (Fig. 2B). In fractionated treatment, both 5 µM and 10 µM significantly reduced the diameter of the spheroids, with the spheroids expressing HIF-2α, even responding with a greater reduction in spheroid diameter than the control spheroids without HIF-2α expression.
Patient-derived NET/PPGL Primary Cultures: Patient Characteristics
Due to the cell line results showing opposing effects of CBD, with both stimulation and inhibition of cell viability depending on the cell line, we then investigated CBD in fresh, surgery-derived, patient NET and PPGL primary cultures, which we processed directly on the day of surgery. We established a total of 12 NET primary cultures from 11 NET patients and 36 PPGL primary cultures from a comparatively large cohort of 35 PPGL patients for this rare tumor entity. The PPGL and NET patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The detailed characteristics of each patient are included in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 (50).
Table 1.
PPGL and NET patient characteristics
| Patients | PPGL (n = 35) | NET (n = 11) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary cultures n | 36 | 12 | |
| Median age in yrs. (range) | 52 (25-76) | 64 (38-81) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male, n | 17 | 6 | |
| Female, n | 18 | 5 | |
| Tumor type | Tumor type | ||
| Pheochromocytoma, n (%) | 26 (72) | Pancreatic NET, n (%) | 6 (50) |
| Paraganglioma, abdominal, n (%) | 4 (11) | Small intestinal NET, n (%) | 6 (50) |
| Paraganglioma, head/neck, n (%) | 6 (17) | ||
| Metastatic, n (%) | 2 (6) | 9 (82) | |
| Germline testing, n (%) | 26 (74) | n/a | |
| Somatic testing, n (%) | 9 (26) | n/a | |
| Pathogenic variants a | n/a | ||
| NF1, n (%) | 5 (14) | ||
| Germline NF1, n | 3 | ||
| Somatic NF1, n | 2 | ||
| RET, n (%) | 2 (6) | ||
| MAX, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| Somatic HRAS, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| SDHB, n (%) | 3 (9) | ||
| SDHC, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| SDHD, n (%) | 2 (6) | ||
| Germline SDHD, n | 1 | ||
| Somatic SDHD, n | 1 | ||
| VUS in VHL, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| BRCA, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| Somatic ATRX, n (%) | 1 (3) | ||
| No pathogenic variants, n (%) | 3 (9) | ||
| No germline, somatic unknown, n (%) | 5 (14) | ||
| Unknown status, n (%) | 9 (26) | ||
| Biochemical phenotype | Functionally active | ||
| Adrenergic, n (%) | 15 (43) | Carcinoid syndrome, n (%) | 2 (18) |
| Noradrenergic, n (%) | 14 (40) | Insulinoma, n (%) | 1 (9) |
| Dopaminergic, n (%) | 1 (3) | Nonfunctional, n (%) | 8 (73) |
| Silent, n (%) | 5 (14) |
Abbreviations: n/a, not available; NET, neuroendocrine tumor; PPGL, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; VUS, variant of unknown significance.
a Germline pathogenic variants if not further specified.
We included 6 pancreatic NET (panNET) and 6 small intestinal NET (siNET) primary cultures from 11 different NET patients (n = 2 from the same patient, 1 siNET primary tumor and 1 metastasis). A majority of NET patients (9/11, 82%) presented with metastatic disease. In total, 3 NET patients presented with functionally active tumors, 2 of these with serotonin-producing carcinoid syndromes and 1 with an insulinoma [Table 1, Supplementary Table S2 (50)].
We included 26 PCCs, 4 abdominal PGLs, and 6 head and neck PGLs from 35 different patients (n = 2 PCCs from the same patient with bilateral PPCs). Two of the 35 patients with PPGLs presented with metastatic disease (n = 1 PCC, n = 1 head and neck PGL). The biochemical phenotypes of the PPGLs were adrenergic (15/35, 43%), noradrenergic (14/35, 40%), dopaminergic (1/35, 3%), or silent (5/35, 14%) [Table 1, Supplementary Table S3 (50)]. Germline sequencing was performed in 26 PPGL patients, and somatic sequencing was performed in 9 PPGLs. In total, we found germline PVs in 13/26 (50%) of the patients tested and somatic PVs in 5/9 (56%) of the PPGLs tested. PVs in cluster 1-associated genes (SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, variant of unknown significance in VHL) were found in 7 patients. Cluster 2-associated PVs (NF1, RET, MAX, HRAS) were found in 9 patients. One patient showed a PV in BRCA and 1 patient a PV in ATRX, which are not associated with any of the clusters. We found no germline and no somatic PVs in 3 PPGLs. Five PPGLs showed no germline PVs while somatic status was not available, and, in 9 PPGLs neither germline nor somatic status was available (unknown status). The detailed listing of the germline/somatic PVs of the PPGL patients can be found in Supplementary Table S3 (50).
Individual Drug Responsitivities of NET Primary Cultures to CBD
In NET primary cultures (n = 12, n = 2 from the same patient), clinically relevant and slightly higher doses of CBD (5 µM and 10 µM) were evaluated. Treatment with 5 µM CBD for 72 hours significantly increased cell viability compared to the untreated control in 1/12 (8%) tumor cultures and showed neutral effects in 11/12 tumor cultures with neither a significant increase nor significant decrease in cell viability (Fig. 3A). However, higher doses of 10 µM CBD (n = 11 primary cultures, n = 2 from the same patient) led to a significant decrease in cell viability in 3/11 (27%) primary cultures (n = 2 from the same patient, nonfunctional siNET primary plus metastasis, n = 1 nonfunctional panNET) (Fig. 3B). With 10 µM CBD, a significant increase in cell viability was found in 2/11 primary cultures (18%, n = 2 siNETs with carcinoid syndrome). All tumor cultures with significant effects (decrease or increase) were from metastatic NETs. Indeed, a majority of NET patients (9/11) presented with metastatic disease.
Figure 3.
Cell viability of NET primary cultures after 72 hours incubation with (A) CBD 5 µM (n = 12) and (B) CBD 10 µM (n = 11). Primary cultures 1.1 and 1.2 are from the same patient. Small intestinal NETs in light green; pancreatic NETs in dark green. Functionally active NETs: Carcinoid syndromes in striped light green (tumors 8, 10); insulinoma in patterned dark green (tumor 2). Each cell viability experiment comprised 3 to 8 samples per drug concentration and patient. The mean values ± SD are shown. Green asterisk: significant decrease of cell viability P < .05. Red asterisk: significant increase of cell viability P < .05.
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; NET, neuroendocrine tumor.
Individual Drug Responsitivities of PPGL Primary Cultures to CBD and Correlation With Cluster Affiliation
Opposing effects of CBD treatment were similarly found in PPGL primary cultures: in 5/35 (14%) primary cultures, clinically relevant doses of 5 µM CBD significantly decreased cell viability after 72 hours compared to the untreated control, while in 6/35 (17%) primary cultures, 5 µM CBD significantly increased cell viability compared to the untreated control (Fig. 4). In the remaining tumor cultures (24/35), neutral effects with neither a significant decrease nor increase in cell viability were observed. Interestingly, 4/5 (80%) PPGL primary cultures with a significant decrease in cell viability in response to CBD showed cluster 2-associated PVs in NF1 (n = 3 germline, n = 1 somatic) (Fig. 4). In the 1 remaining tumor, germline testing was negative and somatic testing was not available. Of the 6 PPGLs with a significant increase in cell viability, 2/6 showed cluster 1-associated PVs (n = 1 germline SDHB, n = 1 somatic SDHD), 1/6 had no germline and no somatic PV, 1/6 showed no germline PV and somatic testing was not available, while for 2/6 no germline and no somatic testing was available [Supplementary Table S3 (50)].
Figure 4.
Cell viability of different human PPGL primary cultures (n = 35, n = 2 from the same patient) after incubation with 5 μM CBD for 72 hours (A) listed in numerical order and (B) listed in order of responsivity to CBD (significant decrease of cell viability, significant increase in cell viability, no significant decrease or increase of cell viability). Primary cultures 13.1 and 13.2 are from the same patient. Cluster 1-related PVs in red: SDHB (tumors 1, 32), SDHB and VUS in EPAS (tumor 2), SDHC (tumor 24), SDHD (tumors 11, 15), VUS in VHL (tumor 12). Cluster 2-related PVs in blue: NF1 (tumors 3, 4, 6, 7, 21; patterned blue), RET (tumors 13.1, 13.2, 17), HRAS (tumor 18), MAX (tumor 30). Other PVs in gold: BRCA (tumor 34), ATRX (tumor 35). Metastatic tumors 2, 35 framed in green. Germline and somatic testing was negative in tumors 8, 9, 19 (light grey). Tumors with negative germline testing and not available somatic status in black. Tumors without available germline and somatic status (unknown status) in dark grey. The detailed listing of the germline/somatic status of the individual PPGL patients can be found in Supplementary Table S3 (50). Each cell viability experiment comprised 3 to 8 samples per drug concentration and patient. The mean values ± SD are shown. Green asterisk: significant decrease of cell viability P < .05. Red asterisk: significant increase of cell viability P < .05.
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; PPGL, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; PV, pathogenic variant; VUS, variant of unknown significance.
Moreover, a comparison between cluster 1-related vs cluster 2-related PPGL primary cultures revealed significant differences: cluster 2 PPGL primary cultures showed a significantly stronger decrease in cell viability in response to 5 µM CBD compared to cluster 1 PPGL primary cultures (P = .042) (Fig. 5). CBD additionally demonstrated particular efficacy in PPGLs with PVs in NF1, with a significantly stronger reduction in cell viability in NF1-mutated PPGLs compared to cluster 1 PPGLs (P = .004) and compared to PPGLs without germline PV + no cluster 1/2 somatic PV or unknown somatic status (P = .015). This latter group includes all PPGLs with negative germline testing results plus either negative somatic testing results or unavailable somatic testing results or somatic PV in BRCA or ATRX (neither of which are associated with the PPGL clusters 1 or 2). No significant differences in the efficacy of CBD were found between cluster 1 PPGLs and PPGLs without germline PV + no cluster 1/2 somatic PV or unknown somatic status.
Figure 5.
Boxplot of PPGL primary cultures after 72 hours incubation with 5 µM CBD: comparison between cluster 1-related (red) and cluster 2-related (blue) tumors. PPGLs with PVs in NF1 are shown in light blue. Additionally, there is a comparison of cluster 1-related and cluster 2-related tumors with tumors without germline PV (and without cluster 1/2 somatic PV or with unknown somatic status) (black). Each cell viability experiment comprised 3 to 8 samples per drug concentration and patient. The mean values are shown as 1 dot. This figure was created with the open-source statistics software R (Version 4.3.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). *P < .05.
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; ns, nonsignificant; PPGL, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; PV, pathogenic variant.
After treatment with higher doses of 10 µM CBD, 9/33 (27%) primary cultures, including 1 metastatic PCC, showed a significant decrease in cell viability compared to the untreated control (Fig. 6). Of these primary cultures, 5/9 were from cluster 2 tumors [n = 3 NF1, n = 2 RET (of these n = 1 MEN2A, n = 1 MEN2B)], 1/9 (metastatic PCC) showed a somatic PV in ATRX, 1/9 showed no germline and no somatic PV, 1/9 showed no germline PV, while somatic status was not available; for 1/9 PPGLs with a significant decrease in cell viability, germline and somatic status was not available [Fig. 6, Supplementary Table S3 (50)]. The percentage of primary cultures with a significant increase in cell viability remained similar compared with lower doses of CBD (6/33, 18%). None of the 6 primary cultures with a significant increase in cell viability showed a cluster 2 PV. Moreover, neither of the 2 metastatic PPGL primary cultures showed a significant increase in cell viability in response to CBD, while the metastatic PCC primary culture with an ATRX PV showed a significant decrease in cell viability.
Figure 6.
Cell viability of different human PPGL primary cultures (n = 33, n = 2 from the same patient) after incubation with 10 μM CBD for 72 hours (A) listed in numerical order and (B) listed in order of responsivity to CBD (significant decrease of cell viability, significant increase of cell viability, no significant increase or decrease of cell viability). Primary cultures 13.1 and 13.2 are from the same patient. Cluster 1-related PVs in red: SDHB (tumors 1, 32), SDHB and VUS in EPAS (tumor 2), SDHC (tumor 24), SDHD (tumor 15), VUS in VHL (tumor 12). Cluster 2-related PVs in blue: NF1 (tumors 3, 4, 6, 21; patterned blue), RET (tumors 13.1, 13.2, 17), HRAS (tumor 18), MAX (tumor 30). Other PVs in gold: BRCA (tumor 34), ATRX (tumor 35). Metastatic tumors 2, 35 framed in green. Germline and somatic testing was negative in tumors 8, 19 (light grey). Tumors with negative germline testing and not available somatic status in black. Tumors without available germline and somatic status (unknown status) in dark grey. The detailed listing of the germline/somatic status of the individual PPGL patients can be found in Supplementary Table S3 (50). Each cell viability experiment comprised 3 to 8 samples per drug concentration and patient. The mean values ± SD are shown. Green asterisk: significant decrease of cell viability P < .05. Red asterisk: significant increase of cell viability P < .05.
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; PPGL, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; PV, pathogenic variant.
Discussion
The medical use of cannabinoids, including CBD as single substance, is already established and approved for many indications, including multiple sclerosis-induced spasticity, cancer-associated pain, cancer-associated loss of weight or loss of appetite, as well as treatment of seizures in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome (27). Since legalization of recreational cannabis use is now being increasingly discussed in many countries including those in Europe and some states of the United States, cannabinoids may be expected to receive even more widespread use. Therefore, the evaluation of cannabinoids not only in healthy subjects but also in cancer patients becomes increasingly clinically relevant.
While studies have shown anticancer properties of cannabinoids in some tumor entities in vitro (28-34), and recently also in patients with glioblastoma (35), the effects still remain largely unexplored in many tumor types including NETs and PPGLs. Glioblastomas, NETs and PPGLs are all of neuroectodermal origin (37), and therefore similar therapeutic approaches may be effective.
We thus evaluated the effects of CBD in PPGL and NET cell lines and found significantly decreased cell viability by CBD in the PPGL cell lines MPC and MTT (both with heterozygous NF1 gene knockout) as well as the pancreatic NET cell line BON1 and the human pulmonary NET cell line NCI-H727. While human midgut NET (GOT1) cells showed no significant changes in cell viability, human pancreatic NET (QGP-1) cell viability, in contrast, was even significantly increased after CBD treatment. These opposing effects, particularly in BON1 and QGP-1, which are both pancreatic NET cell lines, might be related to the genetic profiles of these cell lines, with BON1 showing, in contrast to QGP-1 cells, an additional PV in the mTOR/kinase signaling-related gene TSC2 (51), among others.
Consistent with the MPC cell line data, in PPGL (MPC) cell spheroids (with a heterozygous NF1 gene knockout), CBD similarly showed efficacy leading to a significant reduction in spheroid diameter. Interestingly, CBD led to an even stronger reduction in spheroid diameter of the HIF-2α-expressing MPC spheroids compared to the control spheroids without HIF-2α expression. Therefore, hypoxia-induced upregulation of HIF-2α (15, 49) in addition to the NF1 PV may even improve the anti-tumor effect of CBD. This might be due to increased aggressiveness with faster tumor growth and, simultaneously, pseudohypoxic conditions, both leading to a larger necrotic area in the spheroid tumor in response to therapy. Therefore, we speculate that a PV associated with an aggressive phenotype (eg, cluster 1 PV) in addition to a cluster 2 PV might be the reason for the improved CBD effect in NF1-mutated MPC cells expressing HIF-2α.
Due to these interesting results, we then investigated CBD in surgery-derived human NET and PPGL primary cultures and also found opposing effects of CBD on individual patient tumors. On the one hand, we found significant antitumor effects of CBD at clinically relevant doses, leading to tumor cell death in 14% of PPGLs and, at slightly higher doses, to tumor cell death in 27% of PPGLs and 27% of NETs. On the other hand, we found significant tumor-promoting effects of CBD at clinically relevant doses in 17% of PPGLs and 8% of NETs and, at higher doses, in 18% of PPGLs and 18% of NETs. In the remaining tumor primary cultures, neither a significant decrease nor a significant increase in cell viability was seen. A comparison of cluster 1 PPGLs with cluster 2 PPGLs revealed significantly stronger responsivity, in terms of a decrease in cell viability, of cluster 2-related PPGLs to CBD compared to cluster 1-related PPGLs. Interestingly, 4/5 PPGL primary cultures with a significant decrease in cell viability in response to 5 µM CBD showed a confirmed PV in the cluster 2-associated gene NF1. Their significant responsivity to CBD is consistent with our observations in the murine PCC cell lines and spheroids with heterozygous NF1 gene knockout.
Our preliminary results might be of some significance clinically, since NF1 is mutated or suppressed in a variety of neuroectodermal tumors. For instance, the frequency of somatic NF1 PVs is reported to be 14% to 23% in glioblastoma and 21% to 26% in PPGL (52), as well as up to 7% in NETs (53, 54). Loss of the NF1 gene product neurofibromin function due to inactivating PVs in NF1 results in enhanced and prolonged activation of Ras-Raf-Mek-Erk- and PI3K-Akt-mTOR-signaling (52, 55), and both pathways may play a role in the previously reported antitumor potential of cannabinoids (56, 57). Moreover, therapeutics that inhibit these kinase-signaling pathways, such as the mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus alone or in combination with the tyrosine kinase inhibitors cabozantinib or sunitinib, have shown significant antitumor effects in cluster 2-related PPGL patient primary cultures and cell lines, including those with NF1 PVs (44, 45, 58, 59).
Interestingly, 1 metastatic PCC with a somatic PV in ATRX, which is not associated with cluster 1 or cluster 2, also showed a significant decrease in cell viability in response to CBD. ATRX PVs can also be found in 17.6% of NETs (60) and a simultaneous occurrence of NF1 and ATRX PVs can be found in 1.3% of patients in the TCGA Pan Cancer dataset. In our study, significant antitumor effects of CBD were found in the NET cell line BON1 with an ATRX PV in addition to a TSC2 PV (51), among others. Therefore, we speculate that, in NETs, antitumor effects of CBD could be mediated by the simultaneous occurrence of an aggressive PV in addition to an mTOR/kinase signaling-related PV.
Antitumor and antiproliferative effects of CBD have previously been demonstrated in many cancer types (28-35, 61), but the tumor-promoting effects, which we now report in our PPGL and NET primary cultures, have to our knowledge not been reported previously. However, increased tumor growth induced by Δ9-THC, the second major component of cannabis and nabiximols (Sativex®), has been demonstrated in vivo in murine lung cancer models through suppression of the anticancer immune response (62). As a next step, it would be interesting to evaluate whether Δ9-THC and the combination of CBD/Δ9-THC also show opposing effects in PPGLs and NETs, depending on their clinical and genetic features.
Our study is the first to offer data on the responsivity of individual patient-derived PPGLs and NETs to CBD depending on different clinical and genetic characteristics. The only available preclinical studies evaluating cannabinoids in PPGLs were performed in PC12 rat PCC cells (38-40), and currently no data on NETs are available. Another strength of this present study is the inclusion of a relatively large number of patient-derived PPGL/NET primary cultures (n = 48), which generally are rare tumor entities.
The most important findings of our study are, on the one hand, the specific antitumor effects of CBD in cluster 2 PPGLs and, of these, particularly in NF1-mutated tumors. This demonstrates the potential implementation of personalized anticancer therapy depending on genetic background. It also cannot be excluded that the “neutral” effects of CBD in some tumor cultures in vitro might result in tumor-stabilizing effects in patients. On the other hand, we found significant CBD-induced tumor growth in 8% to 18% of tumor cultures, which is relevant not only with regards to the potential application of cannabinoids as anticancer treatment but also with regards to the already established application of cannabinoids as supportive drugs for cancer patients (for pain, weight and appetite management). While currently only Δ9-THC (Dronabinol®) is approved for this indication, a recent phase 3 clinical trial has shown benefits of nabiximols (CBD + Δ9-THC) as an adjunctive therapy in cancer patients with uncontrolled pain (63). Interestingly, in our study, specifically metastatic midgut siNETs with the carcinoid syndrome responded with tumor growth to CBD, a finding that needs to be confirmed in a larger cohort and further mechanistically explored. Especially in midgut NETs, the carcinoid syndrome can cause chronic diarrhea and mesenterial tumor-induced fibrosis with a desmoplastic reaction, which in turn can lead to stenosis and mesenteric angina with bowel ischemia (64). The effects of cannabinoids on diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and on cancer-related pain have been investigated previously (65-71), and clinical guidelines with controversial comments regarding the use of cannabinoids in cancer-related pain have been published (72-74). At present, the use of CBD in patients with NETs/PPGLs, particularly with siNETs and the carcinoid syndrome or with PPGLs not related to cluster 2, should therefore be carefully considered, since it cannot be excluded that CBD may lead to tumor progression in vivo.
Thus, we established individualized drug testing of primary cultures from surgically removed PPGLs and NETs. This technique of prior drug testing in patient-derived primary cultures before the application of cannabinoids (even as supportive drugs for pain, weight, appetite management, or as health supplements) could be employed in clinical practice, since each individual tumor may react differently to CBD.
As previously described (45), limitations of our primary culture studies include the lack of the tumor microenvironment; moreover, disease stabilization, an important parameter of drug efficacy in vivo, cannot be explored in this model. This is because our primary culture data mostly represent tumor cell death (probably correlating with partial response in vivo) and tumor-promoting effects, with neutral effects possibly correlating with disease stabilization in vivo. This may result in discrepancies between primary culture and in vivo data.
Additionally, while we were able to emphasize the interesting aspect that in metastatic NETs, CBD shows both significant antitumor and significant tumor-promoting effects, our number of NET tumor samples included is too low to conclude that only metastatic patients respond to CBD (only 2/11 NETs in our cohort are nonmetastatic). It is, moreover, known that NETs show a higher metastatic risk compared to PPGLs, which might also influence the results. Moreover, germline or somatic testing of patients with NETs was not performed in our study (apart from only 1 NET patient with suspected bilateral renal cell carcinoma who received germline sequencing with negative results). This is because genetic sequencing of NETs is currently neither performed nor recommended as clinical standard practice. The reason for that is the high heterogeneity of NET PVs, which would require large panel diagnostics or whole-exome sequencing for reliable identification of driver PVs. Even though the incidence of NF1 PVs is lower in NETs in comparison to PPGLs (reported to be up to 7% in NETs) (53, 54), other genetic alterations in ATRX/DAXX/MEN1 and in the PI3K-Akt-mTOR signaling cascade can still be frequently detected in pancreatic NETs (55, 75, 76). In siNETs, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 18 and CDKN1B PVs are frequent findings (77-79). In high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms G3, a specific spectrum of PVs has been reported (54, 80). Moreover, comparative whole-exome sequencing of NET primary tumors and metastases has been previously reported, and specific alterations have been defined (81-84). Target actionability has been calculated to be approximately 50% in neuroendocrine neoplasms, highlighting the future potential of molecular profiling using large panel diagnostics or whole-exome sequencing (85, 86). Therefore, knowledge regarding the genetic status of NETs is both clinically and scientifically relevant and indeed should be further explored in the future.
Our findings of the specific individual antitumor potential of CBD in NF1 tumors should be cross-validated in vivo prior to translation to a clinical phase 2 study in patients with NF1 disease or other PPGLs/NETs with a similar molecular background, by analogy to glioblastoma multiforme.
Conclusions
We found significant opposing effects of CBD in patient-derived PPGL and NET primary cultures. This study offers novel data on the antitumor efficacy of CBD in individual patient tumors (with particular efficacy in NF1- and other cluster 2-associated PPGLs), as well as evidence for potential tumor-promoting effects of CBD in some PPGLs and NETs. Therefore, caution is needed when administering cannabinoids to patients with PPGLs/NETs as supportive therapies and possibly as health supplements. Overall, our data represent a further step towards true precision medicine in PPGL/NET patients.
Acknowledgments
We thank Daniela Stanke for her technical support. This paper contains parts of the unpublished doctoral thesis of Laura Schober.
Contributor Information
Katharina Wang, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Laura Schober, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Alessa Fischer, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Nicole Bechmann, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Julian Maurer, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Lea Peischer, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Astrid Reul, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Constanze Hantel, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Martin Reincke, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Felix Beuschlein, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany; Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; The LOOP Zurich—Medical Research Center, 8044 Zurich, Switzerland.
Mercedes Robledo, Hereditary Endocrine Cancer Group, Spanish National Cancer Research Center, 28029 Madrid, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras, 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Hermine Mohr, Institute for Diabetes and Cancer, Helmholtz Center Munich, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany.
Natalia S Pellegata, Institute for Diabetes and Cancer, Helmholtz Center Munich, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany; Department of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Katharina Schilbach, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Thomas Knösel, Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, 80337 Munich, Germany; Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System (GEPNET-KUM, ENETS-certified Center of Excellence), LMU University Hospital, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Matthias Ilmer, Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System (GEPNET-KUM, ENETS-certified Center of Excellence), LMU University Hospital, 81377 Munich, Germany; Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Martin Angele, Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System (GEPNET-KUM, ENETS-certified Center of Excellence), LMU University Hospital, 81377 Munich, Germany; Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Matthias Kroiss, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany; Department of Medicine I, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.
Umberto Maccio, Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Martina Broglie-Däppen, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Diana Vetter, Department of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Kuno Lehmann, Department of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Karel Pacak, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Ashley B Grossman, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6HG, UK; NET Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London NW3 2QG, UK.
Christoph J Auernhammer, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany; Interdisciplinary Center of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the GastroEnteroPancreatic System (GEPNET-KUM, ENETS-certified Center of Excellence), LMU University Hospital, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Kathrin Zitzmann, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Svenja Nölting, Department of Internal Medicine IV, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany; Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Funding
This research was in part supported by the German Research Foundation [Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)] within the CRC/Transregio 205/2, project number 314061271—TRR 205 “The Adrenal: Central Relay in Health and Disease” and the Immuno-TargET project under the umbrella of University Medicine Zurich.
Disclosures
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Data Availability
Original data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this published article or in the data repositories listed in References.
References
- 1. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1335‐1342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Frilling A, Modlin IM, Kidd M, et al. Recommendations for management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):e8‐e21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Modlin IM, Champaneria MC, Chan AK, Kidd M. A three-decade analysis of 3,911 small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors: the rapid pace of no progress. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(7):1464‐1473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Wu P, He D, Chang H, Zhang X. Epidemiologic trends of and factors associated with overall survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumors over the last two decades in the USA. Endocr Connect. 2023;12(12):e230331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Rinke A, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4656‐4663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Caplin ME, Pavel M, Cwikla JB, et al. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(3):224‐233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Strosberg JR, Caplin ME, Kunz PL, et al. (177)Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high–dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(12):1752‐1763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Yao JC, Fazio N, Singh S, et al. Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):968‐977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T, et al. Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):514‐523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, et al. Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):501‐513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Pavel M, Oberg K, Falconi M, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(7):844‐860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Berends AMA, Buitenwerf E, de Krijger RR, et al. Incidence of pheochromocytoma and sympathetic paraganglioma in The Netherlands: a nationwide study and systematic review. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;51:68‐73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Nölting S, Bechmann N, Taieb D, et al. Personalized management of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Rev. 2022;43(2):199‐239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Wang K, Crona J, Beuschlein F, Grossman AB, Pacak K, Nolting S. Targeted therapies in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(11):2963‐2972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Bechmann N, Eisenhofer G. Hypoxia-inducible factor 2alpha: a key player in tumorigenesis and metastasis of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma? Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2022;130(5):282‐289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fishbein L, Leshchiner I, Walter V, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Cancer Cell. 2017;31(2):181‐193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Alzofon N, Koc K, Panwell K, et al. Mastermind like transcriptional coactivator 3 (MAML3) drives neuroendocrine tumor progression. Mol Cancer Res. 2021;19(9):1476‐1485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Bechmann N, Moskopp ML, Ullrich M, et al. HIF2alpha supports pro-metastatic behavior in pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2020;27(11):625‐640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Crona J, Lamarca A, Ghosal S, Welin S, Skogseid B, Pacak K. Genotype-phenotype correlations in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2019;26(5):539‐550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Eisenhofer G, Lenders JW, Siegert G, et al. Plasma methoxytyramine: a novel biomarker of metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma in relation to established risk factors of tumour size, location and SDHB mutation status. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(11):1739‐1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mannelli M, Ianni L, Cilotti A, Conti A. Pheochromocytoma in Italy: a multicentric retrospective study. Eur J Endocrinol. 1999;141(6):619‐624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Goldstein RE, O’Neill JA Jr, Holcomb GW III, et al. Clinical experience over 48 years with pheochromocytoma. Ann Surg. 1999;229(6):755‐764; discussion 764-756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hescot S, Curras-Freixes M, Deutschbein T, et al. Prognosis of Malignant Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma (MAPP-Prono Study): a European network for the study of adrenal tumors retrospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(6):2367‐2374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hamidi O, Young WF Jr, Gruber L, et al. Outcomes of patients with metastatic phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2017;87(5):440‐450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Lu HC, Mackie K. An introduction to the endogenous cannabinoid system. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79(7):516‐525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Sledzinski P, Nowak-Terpilowska A, Zeyland J. Cannabinoids in medicine: cancer, immunity, and microbial diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;22(1):263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Khalsa JH, Bunt G, Blum K, Maggirwar SB, Galanter M, Potenza MN. Review: cannabinoids as medicinals. Curr Addict Rep. 2022;9(4):630‐646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Shoeib AM, Yarbrough AL, Ford BM, et al. Characterization of cannabinoid receptors expressed in Ewing sarcoma TC-71 and A-673 cells as potential targets for anti-cancer drug development. Life Sci. 2021;285:119993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Galve-Roperh I, Sanchez C, Cortes ML, Gomez del Pulgar T, Izquierdo M, Guzman M. Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. Nat Med. 2000;6(3):313‐319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Scott KA, Dalgleish AG, Liu WM. The combination of cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances the anticancer effects of radiation in an orthotopic murine glioma model. Mol Cancer Ther. 2014;13(12):2955‐2967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Ivanov VN, Grabham PW, Wu CC, Hei TK. Inhibition of autophagic flux differently modulates cannabidiol-induced death in 2D and 3D glioblastoma cell cultures. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):2687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 32. Velasco G, Hernandez-Tiedra S, Davila D, Lorente M. The use of cannabinoids as anticancer agents. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2016;64:259‐266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Armstrong JL, Hill DS, McKee CS, et al. Exploiting cannabinoid-induced cytotoxic autophagy to drive melanoma cell death. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(6):1629‐1637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Doherty GJ, de Paula BHR. Cannabinoids in glioblastoma multiforme-hype or hope? Br J Cancer. 2021;124(8):1341‐1343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Twelves C, Sabel M, Checketts D, et al. A phase 1b randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols cannabinoid oromucosal spray with temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Br J Cancer. 2021;124(8):1379‐1387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Karunasena E, McIver LJ, Bavarva JH, Wu X, Zhu H, Garner HR. ‘Cut from the same cloth’: shared microsatellite variants among cancers link to ectodermal tissues-neural tube and crest cells. Oncotarget. 2015;6(26):22038‐22047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Mills SE. Neuroectodermal neoplasms of the head and neck with emphasis on neuroendocrine carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2002;15(3):264‐278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Erlandsson N, Baumann B, Rossler OG, et al. Lack of correlation between NF-kappaB activation and induction of programmed cell death in PC12 pheochromocytoma cells treated with 6-hydroxydopamine or the cannabinoid receptor 1-agonist CP55,940. Biochem Pharmacol. 2002;64(3):487‐495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Bisogno T, Katayama K, Melck D, et al. Biosynthesis and degradation of bioactive fatty acid amides in human breast cancer and rat pheochromocytoma cells–implications for cell proliferation and differentiation. Eur J Biochem. 1998;254(3):634‐642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Sarker KP, Biswas KK, Yamakuchi M, et al. ASK1-p38 MAPK/JNK signaling cascade mediates anandamide-induced PC12 cell death. J Neurochem. 2003;85(1):50‐61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Kolby L, Bernhardt P, Ahlman H, et al. A transplantable human carcinoid as model for somatostatin receptor-mediated and amine transporter-mediated radionuclide uptake. Am J Pathol. 2001;158(2):745‐755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Bechmann N, Ehrlich H, Eisenhofer G, et al. Anti-tumorigenic and anti-metastatic activity of the sponge-derived marine drugs aeroplysinin-1 and isofistularin-3 against pheochromocytoma in vitro. Mar Drugs. 2018;16(5):172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Bechmann N, Poser I, Seifert V, et al. Impact of extrinsic and intrinsic hypoxia on catecholamine biosynthesis in absence or presence of Hif2alpha in pheochromocytoma cells. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(5):594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Fankhauser M, Bechmann N, Lauseker M, et al. Synergistic highly potent targeted drug combinations in different pheochromocytoma models including human tumor cultures. Endocrinology. 2019;160(11):2600‐2617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Wang K, Schutze I, Gulde S, et al. Personalized drug testing in human pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma primary cultures. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2022;29(6):285‐306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Taylor L, Gidal B, Blakey G, Tayo B, Morrison G. A phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose, multiple dose, and food effect trial of the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of highly purified cannabidiol in healthy subjects. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(11):1053‐1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Fischer A, Kloos S, Remde H, et al. Responses to systemic therapy in metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2023;189(5):546‐565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Fischer A, Kloos S, Maccio U, et al. Metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: somatostatin receptor 2 expression, genetics and therapeutic responses. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108(10):2676‐2685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Fischer A, Maccio U, Wang K, et al. PD-L1 and HIF-2alpha upregulation in head and neck paragangliomas after embolization. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(21):5199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Wang K, Schober L, Fischer A, et al. Supplementary data: Opposing effects of cannabidiol in patient-derived neuroendocrine tumor, pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma primary cultures. Open Data LMU. 2024. Doi: 10.5282/ubm/data.434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 51. Vandamme T, Peeters M, Dogan F, et al. Whole-exome characterization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cell lines BON-1 and QGP-1. J Mol Endocrinol. 2015;54(2):137‐147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Philpott C, Tovell H, Frayling IM, Cooper DN, Upadhyaya M. The NF1 somatic mutational landscape in sporadic human cancers. Hum Genomics. 2017;11(1):13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Zakka K, Nagy R, Drusbosky L, et al. Blood-based next-generation sequencing analysis of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Oncotarget. 2020;11(19):1749‐1757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Venizelos A, Elvebakken H, Perren A, et al. The molecular characteristics of high-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2021;29(1):1‐14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Di Domenico A, Wiedmer T, Marinoni I, Perren A. Genetic and epigenetic drivers of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). Endocr Relat Cancer. 2017;24(9):R315‐R334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Pagano C, Navarra G, Coppola L, Bifulco M, Laezza C. Molecular mechanism of cannabinoids in cancer progression. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(7):3680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Peeri H, Koltai H. Cannabis biomolecule effects on cancer cells and cancer stem cells: cytotoxic, anti-proliferative, and anti-migratory activities. Biomolecules. 2022;12(4):491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Nölting S, Maurer J, Spottl G, et al. Additive anti-tumor effects of lovastatin and everolimus in vitro through simultaneous inhibition of signaling pathways. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Nölting S, Garcia E, Alusi G, et al. Combined blockade of signalling pathways shows marked anti-tumour potential in phaeochromocytoma cell lines. J Mol Endocrinol. 2012;49(2):79‐96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Jiao Y, Shi C, Edil BH, et al. DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Science. 2011;331(6021):1199‐1203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. O’Brien K. Cannabidiol (CBD) in cancer management. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(4):885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Zhu LX, Sharma S, Stolina M, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunol. 2000;165(1):373‐380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Lichtman AH, Lux EA, McQuade R, et al. Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of nabiximols oromucosal spray as an adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic uncontrolled pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018;55(2):179‐188.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Soreide K, Stattner S, Hallet J. Surgery as a principle and technical consideration for primary tumor resection of small bowel neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024;31(2):1125‐1137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Mozaffari S, Nikfar S, Abdollahi M. Drugs of the future for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: an overview of current investigational drugs. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2024;33(3):219‐228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Thapa D, Warne LN, Falasca M. Pharmacohistory of cannabis use-a new possibility in future drug development for gastrointestinal diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(19):14677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Chang L, Cash BD, Lembo A, et al. Efficacy and safety of olorinab, a full agonist of the cannabinoid receptor 2, for the treatment of abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: results from a phase 2b randomized placebo-controlled trial (CAPTIVATE). Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2023;35(5):e14539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Wang L, Hong PJ, May C, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2021;374:n1034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Bimonte S, Nocerino D, Schiavo D, Crisci M, Cascella M, Cuomo A. Cannabinoids for cancer-related pain management: an update on therapeutic applications and future perspectives. Anticancer Res. 2024;44(3):895‐900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Safi K, Sobieraj J, Blaszkiewicz M, Zyla J, Salata B, Dzierzanowski T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol for pain treatment-an update on the evidence. Biomedicines. 2024;12(2):307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Solmi M, De Toffol M, Kim JY, et al. Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2023;382:e072348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Strand N, Souza D, S R, et al. Medical cannabis: a review from the American society of pain and neuroscience. J Pain Res. 2023;16:4217‐4228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. To J, Davis M, Sbrana A, et al. MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(4):202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Busse JW, Vankrunkelsven P, Zeng L, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2021;374:n2040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Scarpa A, Chang DK, Nones K, et al. Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Nature. 2017;543(7643):65‐71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Domenico D, Pipinikas A, Maire CP, et al. Epigenetic landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours reveals distinct cells of origin and means of tumour progression. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Waterfield S, Yousefi P, Webster A, Relton C, Thirlwell C, Suderman M. Chromosome 18 loss of heterozygosity in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours: multi-omic and tumour composition analyses. Neuroendocrinology. 2023;113(9):915‐923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Banck MS, Kanwar R, Kulkarni AA, et al. The genomic landscape of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(6):2502‐2508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Francis JM, Kiezun A, Ramos AH, et al. Somatic mutation of CDKN1B in small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. Nat Genet. 2013;45(12):1483‐1486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Venizelos A, Sorbye H, Elvebakken H, et al. Germline pathogenic variants in patients with high-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2023;30(10):e230057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Jiang Y, Dong YH, Zhao SW, et al. Multiregion WES of metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors revealed heterogeneity in genomic alterations, immune microenvironment and evolutionary patterns. Cell Commun Signal. 2024;22(1):164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Guo Y, Tian C, Cheng Z, et al. Molecular and functional heterogeneity of primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and metastases. Neuroendocrinology. 2023;113(9):943‐956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Postel MD, Darabi S, Howe JR, Liang WS, Craig DW, Demeure MJ. Multiomic sequencing of paired primary and metastatic small bowel carcinoids. F1000Res. 2023;12:417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Zhou W, Han X, Ji Y, et al. Targeted deep sequencing reveals the genetic heterogeneity in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with liver metastasis. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2023;12(3):302‐313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Boileve A, Faron M, Fodil-Cherif S, et al. Molecular profiling and target actionability for precision medicine in neuroendocrine neoplasms: real-world data. Eur J Cancer. 2023;186:122‐132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Cowzer D, Shah RH, Chou JF, et al. Clinical utility of plasma cell-free DNA in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2024;31(4):e230292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Original data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this published article or in the data repositories listed in References.
