Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29766455›Full record

GuidelineClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018

Consensus document on the progression and treatment response criteria in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

X Merino-Casabiel, J Aller, J Arbizu, R García-Figueiras, C González, E Grande, P Jiménez-Fonseca, M I Sevilla, J Capdevila

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multicycle Dosimetric Behavior and Dose-Effect Relationships in [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Nuclear Imaging of Neuroendocrine Tumors.Surgical oncology clinics of North America · 2020
    Review
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

9 authors.

X Merino-CasabielRadiology Department, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
J AllerEndocrinology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro de Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
J ArbizuNuclear Medicine Department, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
R García-FigueirasRadiology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain.
C GonzálezRadiology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro de Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
E GrandeMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
P Jiménez-FonsecaMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
M I SevillaMedical Oncology Department, Investigación Clínica y Traslacional en Cáncer, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas de Málaga (IBIMA), Hospital Universitario Regional y Virgen de la Victoria de Málaga, Malaga, Spain.
J CapdevilaMedical Oncology Department and Gastrointestinal and Endocrine Tumor Unit, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Pg Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. jacapdevila@vhebron.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8017-9941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are a heterogeneous group of low incidence neoplasms characterized by a low proliferative activity and slow growth. Their response to targeted therapies is heterogeneous and often does not lead to tumor shrinkage. Thus, evaluation of the therapeutic response should differ from other kind of tumors.

methodsTo answer relevant questions about which techniques are best in the assessment of progression or treatment response a RAND/UCLA-based consensus process was implemented. Relevant clinical questions were listed followed by a systematic search of the literature. The expert panel answered all questions with recommendations, combining available evidence and expert opinion. Recommendations were validated through a questionnaire and a participatory meeting.

resultsExpert recommendations regarding imaging tools for tumor assessment and evaluation of progression were agreed upon. Available imaging techniques were reviewed and recommendations for best patient monitoring practice and the best way to evaluate treatment response were formulated.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingDisease ProgressionHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsDiagnostic imagingMolecular imagingNeuroendocrine tumorsNuclear medicineRadionuclide imaging

Identifiers

PMID29766455
PMCPMC6223716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.