ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
The relationship between yttrium-90 glass microspheres specific activity, particle density and treatment outcomes in HCC and mCRC.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Post-hoc analysis of adverse events during the EPOCH trial: reconsidering dosimetry.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate relationships between treatment week, relative to Ytrrium-90 (
methodsMultinational, multicenter study TARGET (retrospective; n = 209 HCC patients) was combined with EPOCH (phase III trial; n = 428 mCRC patients). Efficacy included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS, and tumour marker response rates. Safety included clinical and laboratory toxicity. Retrospective multicompartment dosimetry, tumour and normal tissue absorbed dose were available for TARGET; single compartment dosimetry was available for EPOCH.
resultsNo efficacy relationship was found relative to treatment week for TARGET or EPOCH. mRECIST ORR in TARGET for weeks 1 and 2 were 74/125 (59.2%) and 55/84 (65.5%), and by RECIST 1.1 in EPOCH were 54/142 (38.0%) and 15/43 (34.9%), respectively (p > 0.05). Median OS for TARGET weeks 1 and 2 were 21.4 and 20.3 months (p = 0.07), and in EPOCH were 14.9 and 16.4 months, respectively (p = 0.37). No difference in the TARGET primary endpoint of hyperbilirubinemia was noted for weeks 1 and 2, odds ratio 0.64, p = 0.59. TARGET ≥ grade 3 device-related adverse events (AEs) for weeks 1 (16.8%) and 2 (26.2%) were not significantly different (p = 0.11). EPOCH rates of ≥ grade 3 asthenia for weeks 1 (9.2%) and 2 (23.3%) were statistically different (p = 0.01).
conclusionsNo efficacy treatment benefit for week 2 versus week 1 was observed in TARGET or EPOCH, but week 2 treatment trended towards a higher rate and severity of specific AEs.
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.