ArticleOncology2024
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Carboplatin-Etoposide and Cisplatin-Etoposide Combination Therapy in Patients with Advanced Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms: a review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Chemotherapy response in primary peritoneal small cell carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Diagnosing and treating gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms through comparative analysis: a case series and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is characterized by a poor prognosis and is generally treated with platinum and etoposide combination therapy as first-line chemotherapy. However, it remains uncertain whether carboplatin and etoposide combination therapy (CE) and cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy (PE) have comparable treatment efficacy. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of CE and PE in patients with NEC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the patient's clinical record from 2005 to 2022 at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital. Patients who received either CE or PE were included in the study. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
resultsA total of 104 patients were enrolled, with 73 patients assigned to the CE group and 31 patients assigned to the PE group. Statistically, the response rate, progression-free survival time and overall survival time were 42.6%, 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.5-6.3) and 13.6 months (95% CI: 8.9-17.4), respectively, in the CE groups and 44.4%, 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.1-7.0) and 12.5 months (95% CI: 11.2-14.6), respectively, in the PE groups. There was no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the CE and the PE groups. However, the number of patients with elevated creatinine (3.35 mg/dL and 3.88 mg/dL in 2 patients, respectively) was significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.
conclusionThe efficacy of CE and PE in patients with NEC is comparable. However, the incidence of renal dysfunction was found to be significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.
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.