MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158466122 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.119313

Long-Term Outcome and Toxicity After Dose-Intensified Treatment with <sup>131</sup>I-MIBG for Advanced Metastatic Carcinoid Tumors

2013· article· en· W2158466122 on OpenAlexaff
Samer Ezziddin, Amir Sabet, Timur Logvinski, Khaled Alkawaldeh, Charlotte J. Yong‐Hing, Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar, Frank Grünwald, Hans‐Jürgen Biersack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuroendocrine tumorsCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsToxicityCarcinoid tumorsRetrospective cohort studyCohortInternal medicineCarcinoid syndromeProgressive diseaseAdverse effectGastroenterologyDosingNuclear medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Reported experience with systemic (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((131)I-MIBG) therapy of neuroendocrine tumors comprises different dosing schemes. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcome and toxicity of treatment with 11.1 GBq (300 mCi) of (131)I-MIBG per cycle. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 31 patients with advanced metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (20 with carcinoid tumors and 11 with other tumors) treated with (131)I-MIBG. Treatment outcome was analyzed for patients with carcinoid tumors (the most common tumors in this study), and toxicity was analyzed for the entire patient cohort (n = 31). Treatment comprised 11.1 GBq (300 mCi) per course and minimum intervals of 3 mo. The radiographic response was classified according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Toxicity was determined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0) for all laboratory data at regular follow-up visits and during outpatient care, including complete blood counts and hepatic and renal function tests. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier curve method (log rank test; P < 0.05). RESULTS: The radiographic responses in patients with carcinoid tumors comprised a minor response in 2 patients (10%), stable disease in 16 patients (80%; median time to progression, 34 mo), and progressive disease in 2 patients (10%). The symptomatic responses in patients with functioning carcinoid tumors comprised complete resolution in 3 of the 11 evaluable symptomatic patients (27%), partial resolution in 6 patients (55%), and no significant change in 11 patients. The median overall survival in patients with carcinoid tumors was 47 mo (95% confidence interval, 32-62), and the median progression-free survival was 34 mo (95% confidence interval, 13-55). Relevant treatment toxicities were confined to transient myelosuppression of grade 3 or 4 in 15.3% (leukopenia) and 7.6% (thrombocytopenia) of applied cycles and a suspected late adverse event (3% of patients), myelodysplastic syndrome, after a cumulative administered activity of 66.6 GBq. The most frequent nonhematologic side effect was mild nausea (grade 1 or 2), which was observed in 28% of administered cycles. No hepatic or renal toxicities were noted. CONCLUSION: Dose-intensified treatment with (131)I-MIBG at a fixed dose of 11.1 GBq (300 mCi) per cycle is safe and offers effective palliation of symptoms and disease stabilization in patients with advanced carcinoid tumors. The favorable survival and limited toxicity suggest that high cycle activities are suitable and that this modality may be used for targeted carcinoid treatment--either as an alternative or as an adjunct to other existing therapeutic options.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207