MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964893653

Efficacy of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for esthesioneuroblastoma, the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre experience

2019· article· en· W2964893653 on OpenAlexaff
Olfat Kamel Hasan, Grace Kong, A. Ravikumar, Rodney J. Hicks

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclide therapyMedicineEsthesioneuroblastomaConcomitantNuclear medicineCumulative doseInternal medicineRadiation therapyOncology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

123 Objectives: Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB), also known as olfac­tory neuroblastoma, is a rare malignant sinonasal neoplasm accounting for 3% of all nasal cavity tumors. There is no consensus on standardized treatment strategy, common practice being surgical resection and adjuvant radio­therapy with or without chemotherapy depending on disease stage and clinical status. ENB commonly expresses somatostatin receptors (SSTR), allowing therapeutic targeting with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). Data on PRRT in ENB are significantly lacking with only few individual case reports in the literature. We reviewed the outcomes of patients with unresectable relapsed ENB despite prior conventional treatments, and subsequently treated with PRRT at our centre. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and imaging scans of five patients (3 men and 2 women age range 45-79 years), who were referred to The Peter McCallum Cancer Centre from August 2004 till November 2018, with a history of ENB treated with PRRT. All had high SSTR expression, demonstrated by intense uptake in Gallium-68 DOATATATE scan, defined as greater than normal background liver activity. They were treated with PRRT in variable combinations of Indium-111 Octreotate (In-Tate), Lu-177 DOTATATE (Lu-Tate), and Y-90 DOTATATE (Y-Tate). Median cumulative activity was 13.9 GBq In-Tate, 24.9 GBq Lu-Tate, and 2.7 GBq Y-Tate; with a median of 4 cycles. All patients had concomitant radiosensitising chemotherapy with at least one therapy cycle. We assessed the clinical outcome, in addition to anatomic and functional imaging changes and hematologic toxicity (CTCAE 4.1 criteria) post PRRT. Results: Of these 5 patients, 3 had large volume disease, either locally extensive or widespread metastases; and 2 had small volume metastatic disease. At 3 months post induction PRRT, the disease control rate was 80%: 3 patients had partial imaging response on SSTR imaging, 1 patient had stabilization of previously progressive disease, and 1 patient who had retropharyngeal nodal disease with prior external beam radiation therapy had early progression after PRRT. Most patients who responded or stabilized by imaging, has concordant symptomatic improvement after PRRT.Three patients have died with overall survival ranging from 4-53 months (median 38 months) from the first PRRT cycle. The progression free survival ranged from 0-30 months (median 17 months). Two patients are still alive and being followed up. Side effects of PRRT include: 1 patient had grade 4 neutropenia, 1 had grade 2 thrombocytopenia, likely multifactorial related to combined and previous complex therapy regimens. One patient developed progressive surgery-related CSF leak, in the context of significant tumor regression after PRRT. Conclusions: This series represents the largest case series of recurrent/metastatic ENB treated with PRRT. Our experience suggests that PRRT is feasible and can be an effective option in patients with unresectable locally extensive or metastatic ENB. Careful patient selection based on symptoms, imaging phenotype, disease volume and prior interventions may be factors that contribute to better outcomes. Given the rarity of the condition, ideally multi-centre prospective trials of PRRT in ENB are required to objectively assess disease control, quality of life and survival.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207