ArticleThe oncologist2022
Position Statement on the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Response Evaluation to Systemic Therapies of Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, With a Special Focus on Radioligand Therapy.
Article in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular imaging and radioligand therapies in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Review
- Current Medical Controversies in Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- A phase 1 study to assess the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of PV-10 (Rose Bengal Sodium) in neuroendocrine tumours metastatic to the liver.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Texture Analysis of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT Images for the Prediction of Outcome in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Unmasking insulinoma following commencement of somatostatin analogues in malignant neuroendocrine tumours.Endocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Surgery for advanced adrenal malignant disease: recommendations based on European Society of Endocrine Surgeons consensus meeting.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to provide a guidance for the management of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in clinical practice. MATERIAL AND
methodsNominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 8 experts reviewed the current management of NETs, identified controversies and gaps, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 26 experts, was selected to test agreement with the statements through 2 Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 = totally agree to 4 = totally disagree. The agreement was considered if ≥75% of answers pertained to Categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or Categories 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement).
resultsOverall, 132 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) progression and treatment response criteria; (3) advanced gastro-enteric NETs; (4) advanced pancreatic NETs; (5) advanced NETs in other locations; (6) re-treatment with radioligand therapy (RLT); (7) neoadjuvant therapy. After 2 Delphi rounds, only 4 statements lacked a clear consensus. RLT was not only recommended in the sequencing of different NETs but also as neoadjuvant treatment, while several indications for retreatment with RLT were also established.
conclusionThis document sought to pull together the experts' attitudes when dealing with different clinical scenarios of patients suffering from NETs, with RLT having a specific role where evidence-based data are limited.
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.