SynthesisThe oncologist2019
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Active Treatment with Placebo in Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Current Medical Controversies in Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Position Statement on the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Response Evaluation to Systemic Therapies of Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, With a Special Focus on Radioligand Therapy.The oncologist · 2022Article
- Review
- Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy with [Cancers · 2022Review
- Rare Malignant Indications for Liver Transplantation: A Collaborative Transplant Study Report.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Distinct Expression Patterns of VEGFR 1-3 in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Supporting Clinical Relevance, but not a Prognostic Factor.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- A metastatic tumor is no different to a viral pandemic: lessons learnt from COVID-19 may teach us to change the PRRT paradigm.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost guidelines still recommend active surveillance for patients with asymptomatic, unresectable neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, recent findings from several randomized placebo-controlled trials suggest that most patients would benefit from active treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis of pooled outcomes from clinical trials in which an active treatment arm was compared with placebo to determine whether active treatment provides a survival advantage. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis meta-analysis evaluated six trials that compared a medication with placebo in patients with an asymptomatic, metastatic NET. The trials were heterogenous with regard to the active medication (octreotide, lanreotide, sunitinib, everolimus, Lu-Dotatate) and tumor localizations (gastrointestinal, pancreas, lung). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for the placebo and active treatment arms were obtained from individual trial data and combined to obtain pooled outcomes.
resultsThe individual trials all reported significantly better PFS outcomes for active treatment. The pooled data confirmed this advantage. At months 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24, pooled PFS rates for the placebo and treatment arms, respectively, were 92.9% versus 96.9%; 54.3% versus 83.7%; 35.5% versus 68.5%; 25.1% versus 54.7%; and 17.7% versus 61.0%. OS was also higher in the active treatment groups. At months 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60, OS rates (placebo vs. active treatment), respectively, were 88.1% versus 93.4%; 84.1% versus 86.2%; 67.4% versus 76%; 56.6% versus 64.4%; 49.9% versus 61.0%; and 41.7% versus 45.9%.
conclusionThis meta-analysis confirms findings from recent clinical trials indicating that active treatment yields better survival outcomes than placebo. Importantly, these findings were obtained across a wide range of patient profiles and diverse medical treatments for metastatic NETs. Given the lack of reliable prognostic factors to determine a priori which patients are unlikely to benefit from active treatment, these findings support early treatment in most patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although most guidelines still recommend active surveillance for patients diagnosed with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, the results of this meta-analysis, together with recent data from key clinical trials, suggest that most patients could benefit from upfront active treatment. However, more data are needed to confirm this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.