Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40414996›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

Novel framework for response evaluation criteria in grade 1/2 neuroendocrine tumors (RECIN) following [

Swayamjeet Satapathy, Piyush Aggarwal, Ashwani Sood, Kunal R Chandekar, Chandan K Das, Rajesh Gupta, Divya Khosla, Namrata Das, Rakesh Kapoor, Rajender Kumar and 2 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Dual‑targeted radioligand therapy with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
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.

Swayamjeet SatapathyDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. swayamjeet.satapathy@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5318-6644
Piyush AggarwalDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Ashwani SoodDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Kunal R ChandekarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Chandan K DasDepartment of Clinical Haematology and Medical Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Rajesh GuptaDepartment of GI Surgery, HPB and Liver Transplantation, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Divya KhoslaDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Namrata DasDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Rakesh KapoorDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Rajender KumarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Harmandeep SinghDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Bhagwant R MittalDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTreatment response assessment in grade 1/2 neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has been a key challenge due to their indolent nature. Here, we propose the novel response evaluation criteria with [

methodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of the phase 2 LuCAP trial, wherein somatostatin receptor-positive, advanced grade 1/2 gastroenteropancreatic NET patients were treated with [

resultsSeventy-two patients were included with 23/72 (32%) patients achieving RECIST-partial response (PR). The novel RECIN-PR was defined as ≥ 25% decrease in summed SULpeak or conventional RECIST-PR with no signs of radiographic progression. Based on this, 40/72 (56%) patients achieved RECIN-PR. In particular, of the 42 patients with RECIST-stable disease, 17 (40%) had RECIN-PR. RECIN-PR was associated with significantly better PFS (HR: 0.33, 95%CI: 0.15-0.76; C-index: 0.67) and had better predictive ability compared to RECIST-PR (HR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.21-1.29; C-index: 0.60).

conclusionIn advanced grade 1/2 NETs treated with [ CLINICAL

trial registrationClinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2020/01/022636.

Indexed as

Intestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsOctreotideOrganometallic CompoundsPancreatic NeoplasmsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyTreatment Outcomelutetium Lu 177 dotatateOctreotideOrganometallic Compounds[177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE[68Ga]Ga-SSA-PET/CT, neuroendocrine tumorMolecular responseRECINRECIST

Identifiers

PMID40414996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.