Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31350603›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

Prognostic value of somatostatin receptor expressing tumor volume calculated from

Akira Toriihara, Lucia Baratto, Tomomi Nobashi, Sonya Park, Negin Hatami, Guido Davidzon, Pamela L Kunz, Andrei Iagaru

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Physiological bio-distribution ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. [Cancers · 2025
    Article
  10. Low-activity [EJNMMI physics · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Visual and whole-body quantitative analyses ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Akira ToriiharaDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Lucia BarattoDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Tomomi NobashiDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Sonya ParkDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Negin HatamiDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Guido DavidzonDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA.
Pamela L KunzDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305-5826, USA.
Andrei IagaruDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA. aiagaru@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-5329

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the prognostic value of volumetric parameters calculated from

methodsNinety-two patients (44 men and 48 women, mean age of 59.5-year-old) with pathologically confirmed WD-NET (grades 1 or 2) were enrolled in a prospective expanded access protocol. Selected data was analyzed retrospectively for this project. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUV

resultsUnivariate analyses revealed significant difference of PFS for WHO tumor grade and ΣSRETV (P < 0.05), while there were no significant differences in age, sex, SUV

conclusionΣSRETV calculated from

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedKaplan-Meier EstimateLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm MetastasisNeuroendocrine Tumorsgallium Ga 68 dotatateOrganometallic CompoundsReceptors, Somatostatin68Ga-DOTATATENeuroendocrine tumorPET/CTPrognosisSomatostatin receptor expressing tumor volumeWell-differentiated

Identifiers

PMID31350603

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.