Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21263089›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2011

Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute Neuroendocrine Tumor clinical trials planning meeting.

Matthew H Kulke, Lillian L Siu, Joel E Tepper, George Fisher, Deborah Jaffe, Daniel G Haller, Lee M Ellis, Jacqueline K Benedetti, Emily K Bergsland, Timothy J Hobday and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
23.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 304 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Randomized Study of Temozolomide or Temozolomide and Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (ECOG-ACRIN E2211).Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Phase 3 Trial ofThe New England journal of medicine · 2017
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew H KulkeDana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Lillian L Siu
Joel E Tepper
George Fisher
Deborah Jaffe
Daniel G Haller
Lee M Ellis
Jacqueline K Benedetti
Emily K Bergsland
Timothy J Hobday
Eric Van Cutsem
James Pingpank
Kjell Oberg
Steven J Cohen
Mitchell C Posner
James C Yao
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) arise from a variety of anatomic sites and share the capacity for production of hormones and vasoactive peptides. Because of their perceived rarity, NETs have not historically been a focus of rigorous clinical research. However, the diagnosed incidence of NETs has been increasing, and the estimated prevalence in the United States exceeds 100,000 individuals. The recent completion of several phase III studies, including those evaluating octreotide, sunitinib, and everolimus, has demonstrated that rigorous evaluation of novel agents in this disease is both feasible and can lead to practice-changing outcomes. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trials planning meeting to identify key unmet needs, develop appropriate study end points, standardize clinical trial inclusion criteria, and formulate priorities for future NET studies for the US cooperative group program. Emphasis was placed on the development of well-designed clinical trials with clearly defined efficacy criteria. Key recommendations include the evaluation of pancreatic NET separately from NETs of other sites and the exclusion of patients with poorly differentiated histologies from trials focused on low-grade histologies. Studies evaluating novel agents for the control of hormonal syndromes should avoid somatostatin analog washout periods when possible and should include quality-of-life end points. Because of the observed long survival after progression of many patients, progression-free survival is recommended as a feasible and relevant primary end point for both phase III studies and phase II studies where a delay in progression is expected in the absence of radiologic responses.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicFemaleForecastingHumansMaleNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Neuroendocrine TumorsPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID21263089
PMCPMC3068065
OpenAlexW2167834420

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.