ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Safety and efficacy of re-treatment with [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. 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.
- Dual‑targeted radioligand therapy with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in neuroendocrine tumours: advances, combination strategies, and future directions.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Editorial: Diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms with a focus on peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT).Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPatients with gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP NET) who retain somatostatin receptor (SSTR) expression after initial response to [ MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis, approved by institutional ethics board, was performed in patients with GEP NET who received R-PRRT for either symptomatically or radiologically progressive disease. Safety was assessed by renal and haematological parameters at 3 months post R-PRRT (CTCAE v5.0). Molecular imaging response was evaluated on [
resultsA total of 63 patients had R1-PRRT (1-3 cycles). The majority (70%) had Grade 2 NET and small intestinal primary (51%). A second re-treatment course (R2-PRRT) was given in 20 patients and a third course (R3-PRRT) in 6 patients. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was stable following R1-PRRT. Following R2-PRRT, worsening GFR from CTCAE G2 to G3 was seen in 10% (2/20) of patients, but none after R3-PRRT. Grade 3 thrombocytopenia occurred in 2 patients after R1-PRRT and in 1 patient after R3-PRRT. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 1 patient post R1-PRRT. Following R1-PRRT, RECIST 1.1 responses CR, PR, SD was 0%, 10%, 76%, respectively. Disease control rate on GaTate PET/CT was 52/58 (89%) post R1-PRRT. Median progression free survival (PFS) following R1-PRRT was 1.6 years (95% CI:1.2-2.3).
conclusionR-PRRT is feasible, tolerable and efficacious in achieving disease control in patients with progressive GEP NET.
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.