Systemic Therapy in Incurable Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present review was to determine which antineoplastic systemic therapy is most effective in improving clinical outcomes for patients with incurable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (nets). METHODS: A systematic search (2008-2016) of the literature in the medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted; abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, the European Society for Medical Oncology, the European Cancer Congress, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society were reviewed. Draft recommendations were created, and a comprehensive review process was undertaken. Outcomes-including progression-free survival (pfs), overall survival, objective response rate, adverse events, and quality of life-were extracted from each of the studies. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials (rcts), sixteen nonrandomized prospective studies, and thirteen retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with well-or moderately-differentiated pancreatic nets (pnets) should receive targeted therapy (that is, everolimus or sunitinib), and patients with non-pnets should be offered either targeted therapy (that is, everolimus) or somatostatin analogues (ssas-that is, octreotide long-acting release or lanreotide). Evidence from two phase iii trials demonstrated a significant pfs benefit for patients with pnets. For patients with non-pnets, the evidence comes from subgroup analyses of rcts, as well as from a planned interim analysis. Although the evidence has limitations, the rarity of the disease, coupled with the difficulty of conducting methodologically sound trials in the affected population, means that treatment decisions have to make use of the best available evidence. Because of insufficient evidence for both pnets and non-pnets, no evidence-based recommendation can be made for or against other types of targeted therapy, other ssas, chemotherapy, or combination therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".