Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342086›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2021

Temozolomide in Grade 3 Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

David L Chan, Emily K Bergsland, Jennifer A Chan, Rujuta Gadgil, Thorvardur R Halfdanarson, Kathleen Hornbacker, Virginia Kelly, Pamela L Kunz, Patrick W McGarrah, Nitya P Raj and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. [EClinicalMedicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Approach to the Patient: Insulinoma.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

David L ChanOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7773-3144
Emily K BergslandHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jennifer A ChanDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Rujuta GadgilDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Thorvardur R HalfdanarsonMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Kathleen HornbackerSchool of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Virginia KellyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Pamela L KunzSchool of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Patrick W McGarrahMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nitya P RajMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Diane L ReidyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Alia ThawerOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Julia WhitmanHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Linda WuNew York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Christoph BeckerSchool of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Simron SinghOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USStanford University · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMayo Clinic · USSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of California, San Francisco · USCornell University · USThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrade 3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (G3 GEPNENs) are often aggressive, and the optimal treatment is unclear for this subgroup of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Temozolomide (TEM)-based regimens have been increasingly used to treat grade 1-2 NENs, but their efficacy in G3 NENs remains undetermined. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of TEM-containing regimens in advanced grade 3 GEPNENs. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multicenter retrospective review (2008-2018) of patients with metastatic/unresectable G3 GEPNENs who received a TEM-containing regimen was undertaken within a North American partnership to pool data. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF). Radiologic response was extracted from local reports.

resultsOne hundred and thirty patients in six high-volume NEN centers were included (median age 55, 64% male, 18% functional, 67% pancreatic NEN). Forty-nine percent were well-differentiated, 35% poorly differentiated, and 15% unknown based on local pathology reports. The regimen used was capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) in 92% and TEM alone in 8%. Radiological response by local assessment was seen in 36% of patients. Median TTF was 3.6 months and median overall survival (OS) 19.2 months. Six percent of patients required discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. TTF was longer in first-line treatment (7.8 months vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36; p = .015) and in patients with pancreatic NENs (panNENs) compared with gastrointestinal NENs (5.8 months vs 1.8 months; p = .04). The overall response rate was higher in the first-line setting (51% vs 29%; p = .02) and in panNEN (41% vs 23%; p = .04).

conclusionThis is the largest TEM treatment series in G3 NEN, involving collaboration of several major North American NEN centers as a partnership. Thirty-six percent of patients showed some degree of radiographic response, and treatment was generally well tolerated, although the median duration of response was short. Response rates and time to treatment failure were superior in the first-line setting. CAPTEM should be considered a viable treatment option in this setting. Further randomized trials are warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are heterogeneous, and optimal treatment for aggressive grade 3 (G3) NENs remains undetermined. The capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) regimen has been used in low-grade pancreas NENs but there are few data for its safety and efficacy in the G3 setting. This article reports on the efficacy of temozolomide-containing regimens, particularly CAPTEM, in management of G3 NENs. The good tolerance and response rate show that CAPTEM should be considered a viable regimen in treatment of G3 NENs pending confirmatory prospective studies.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTemozolomideTemozolomideCapecitabine and temozolomideChemotherapyNeuroendocrine tumorsOutcomesTemozolomide

Identifiers

PMID34342086
PMCPMC8571741
OpenAlexW3190487880

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.