Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26370353›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Oncology2015

Consensus on biomarkers for neuroendocrine tumour disease.

Kjell Oberg, Irvin M Modlin, Wouter De Herder, Marianne Pavel, David Klimstra, Andrea Frilling, David C Metz, Anthony Heaney, Dik Kwekkeboom, Jonathan Strosberg and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03012789 (Diagnosis of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms and Assessment of Response to Surgery by Means of Measurement of Gene Transcripts in Blood), which is not on this map. Cited by 138 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.9field-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.

NCT03012789 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Diagnosis of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms and Assessment of Response to Surgery by Means of Measurement of Gene Transcripts in Blood

TypeinterventionalSponsorWren Laboratories LLCRan2017 to 2026Enrolled30ConditionsNeuroendocrine Tumor, GastroenteropancreaticArmsSurgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

138 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 279 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Consensus document on the progression and treatment response criteria in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Krenning score enhances integrated biomarker models for survival prediction in PRRT-treated GEP-NET: a retrospective cohort study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Global mRNA 3'UTR lengthening in small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Can we predict their behavior?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 13 institutions in 5 countries.

Kjell ObergDepartment of Medical Sciences, Endocrine Oncology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Irvin M ModlinYale University School of Medicine, New Haven CT, USA. Electronic address: imodlin@optonline.net.
Wouter De HerderSection of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Marianne PavelCharite Universitätsmedzin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
David KlimstraDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrea FrillingImperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, London, UK.
David C MetzDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anthony HeaneyDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dik KwekkeboomDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jonathan StrosbergH Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Timothy MeyerUniversity College London Cancer Institute, London, UK.
Steven F MossBrown University, Liver Research Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Kay WashingtonDepartment of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Edward WolinMarkey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Eric LiuDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
James GoldenringDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USErasmus University Rotterdam · NLBrown University · USCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHammersmith Hospital · GBMarkey Cancer Center · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System · USUppsala University · SEYale University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Management of neuroendocrine neoplasia represents a clinical challenge because of its late presentation, lack of treatment options, and limitations in present imaging modalities and biomarkers to guide management. Monoanalyte biomarkers have poor sensitivity, specificity, and predictive ability. A National Cancer Institute summit, held in 2007, on neuroendocrine tumours noted biomarker limitations to be a crucial unmet need in the management of neuroendocrine tumours. A multinational consensus meeting of multidisciplinary experts in neuroendocrine tumours assessed the use of current biomarkers and defined the perquisites for novel biomarkers via the Delphi method. Consensus (at >75%) was achieved for 88 (82%) of 107 assessment questions. The panel concluded that circulating multianalyte biomarkers provide the highest sensitivity and specificity necessary for minimum disease detection and that this type of biomarker had sufficient information to predict treatment effectiveness and prognosis. The panel also concluded that no monoanalyte biomarker of neuroendocrine tumours has yet fulfilled these criteria and there is insufficient information to support the clinical use of miRNA or circulating tumour cells as useful prognostic markers for this disease. The panel considered that trials measuring multianalytes (eg, neuroendocrine gene transcripts) should also identify how such information can optimise the management of patients with neuroendocrine tumours.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDelphi TechniqueHumansMicroRNAsNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Neoplastic Cells, CirculatingNeuroendocrine TumorsPrognosisUnited StatesBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID26370353
PMCPMC5023063
OpenAlexW2167407589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.