Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044469›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

External Validation of a Clinical Score for Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors Under Consideration for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.

Satya Das, Aman Chauhan, Liping Du, Katharine E Thomas, Aasems Jacob, Aimee Schad, Shikha Jain, Aaron Jessop, Chirayu Shah, David Eisner and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prediction ofCancers · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Satya DasDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Aman ChauhanUniversity of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, Lexington.
Liping DuDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University of Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Katharine E ThomasDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Lousiana State University, New Orleans.
Aasems JacobUniversity of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, Lexington.
Aimee SchadDepartment of Medicine, Rush Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Shikha JainDepartment of Medicine, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago.
Aaron JessopDepartment of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Chirayu ShahDepartment of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
David EisnerDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dana B CardinDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Kristen K CiomborDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Laura W GoffDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Marques BradshawDepartment of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dominique DelbekeDepartment of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Martin SandlerDepartment of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Robert A RamirezDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jordan BerlinDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USMarkey Cancer Center · USRush University Medical Center · USUniversity Medical Center New Orleans · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

Translational Analysis CoreP30DK058404 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RICHARD M. PEEK · 2002 to 2026
$29.9M
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center SPORE in Gastrointestinal CancerP50CA236733 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI STEPHEN W. FESIK · 2019 to 2026
$19.6M
Vanderbilt Clinical Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA090625 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Debra L. Friedman, Paula Jill Hurley · 2001 to 2026
$16.9M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA090625NCI NIH HHS P50 CA236733NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK058404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite the benefit of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD NETs), no clinical metric to anticipate benefit from the therapy for individual patients has been previously defined. Objective: To assess whether the prognostic ability of the clinical score (CS) could be validated in an external cohort of patients with WD NETs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study's analysis included patients with WD NETs who were under consideration for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with lutetium-177 (177Lu)-dotatate between March 1, 2016, and March 17, 2020. The original cohort included patients from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. The validation cohort included patients from Ochsner Medical Center, Markey Cancer Center, and Rush Medical Center. Patients with paragangliomas, pheochromocytomas and neuroblastomas were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from June to November 2021. Exposures: PRRT with 177Lu-dotatate or alternate therapies such as everolimus, sunitinib, or capecitabine plus temozolomide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) and was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for primary tumor site, tumor grade, and number of PRRT doses administered was used to analyze association between CS and outcomes. Results: A total of 126 patients (median age [IQR] age: 63.6 [52.9-70.7] years; 64 male individuals) were included in the validation cohort, and the combined cohort (validation and original cohorts combined) had a total of 248 patients (median [IQR] patient age: 63.3 [53.3-70.3] years; 126 male individuals). In the validation cohort, on multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.64-4.16). After finding an association of the CS with PFS in the validation cohort, the original and validation cohorts were combined into the cohort for this analysis. On multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.89-3.36). Conclusions and Relevance: Increases in CS were associated with worsening PFS in the validation cohort, validating findings from the original cohort. These findings suggest that the CS, to our knowledge, represents the first clinical metric to estimate anticipated benefit from PRRT for patients with WD NETs and may be a clinical tool for patients being considered for PRRT.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsOctreotideOrganometallic CompoundsPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalProportional Hazards ModelsProspective Studieslutetium Lu 177 dotatateOctreotideOrganometallic CompoundsRadioisotopesReceptors, Peptide

Identifiers

PMID35044469
PMCPMC8771294
OpenAlexW4206238483

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.