Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39225826›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2024

Efficacy and safety of rechallenge with [

Giulia Santo, Gianpaolo Di Santo, Anna Sviridenko, Steffen Bayerschmidt, Lukas Wirth, Fabian Scherbauer, Peter Lehmann, Elisabeth von Guggenberg, Clemens Decristoforo, Isabel Heidegger-Pircher and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Phase 2 Prospective Trial of Retreatment with [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Trial
  4. PSMA-RECAP: [Frontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Frailty and [Theranostics · 2026
    Review
  6. Use ofWiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Giulia SantoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Gianpaolo Di SantoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Anna SviridenkoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Steffen BayerschmidtDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Lukas WirthDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Fabian ScherbauerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Peter LehmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Elisabeth von GuggenbergDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Clemens DecristoforoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Isabel Heidegger-PircherDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Jasmin BekticDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Irene VirgoliniDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria. irene.virgolini@i-med.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0001-7097-6170

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcome of rechallenge [

methodsWe retrospectively included 18 patients who underwent rechallenge with [

resultsPatients were initially treated with a median of 5 cycles (range 4-7) and were rechallenged after a median of 9 months (range 3-13). Each patient received a median of 4 (range 2-7) rechallenge cycles (median cumulative activity 26.1 GBq). None of the patients experienced life-threatening G4 adverse events during either treatment period. Grade 3 adverse events included one case of anaemia, one case of thrombocytopenia, and one case of renal failure. In 8/18 patients long-term toxicities were evaluated. Serious toxicities (≥ Grade 3) occurred in 3/8 patients (n = 1 G4 thrombocytopenia, n = 1 G4 renal failure and n = 1 pancytopenia and G4 renal failure). Best PSA50%-response was observed in 44% of patients and PSA-disease control was confirmed in 56% of patients at the last cycle. Of the 12/18 patients restaged by imaging, 6/12 (50%) patients had disease control (partial response/stable disease), 1/12 had a mixed response, and 5/12 had progression. After a median follow-up time of 25 months (range 14-44), 10 patients had died, 7 were still alive, and one patient was lost at follow-up. The median OS was 29 months (95%CI, 14.3-43.7 months) for the initial treatment and 11 months (95%CI, 8.1-13.8 months) for the first rechallenge course.

conclusionMore than half of patients benefit from rechallenge PRLT. Our analysis suggests that rechallenge may prolong survival in selected patients, with an acceptable safety profile.

Indexed as

LutetiumNeoplasm MetastasisProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantAgedAged, 80 and overHeterocyclic Compounds, 1-RingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstate-Specific AntigenRadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesSafetyTreatment OutcomeHeterocyclic Compounds, 1-RingLutetiumLutetium-177PluvictoProstate-Specific AntigenRadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticals[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-I&TmCRPCProstateRechallengeRLT

Identifiers

PMID39225826
PMCPMC11599357

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.