Targeted Radiation Therapy (PRRT) for Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer: What Patients Should Know

Table of Contents

• Key Points
• Understanding Medullary Thyroid Cancer and the Treatment Gap
• Why Researchers Conducted This Study
• Study Methods: How the Research Was Conducted
• The 11 Studies: Patients, Treatments, and Study Designs
• Key Findings: Overall Results Across All Treatments
• Key Findings: Comparing [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE and [90Y]Y-DOTATOC
• Side Effects: What the Safety Analysis Found
• What This Means for Patients
• Limitations: What This Study Could Not Prove
• Recommendations and Future Directions
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Source Information

Key Points

• PRRT controlled disease by imaging in 58% of 177 advanced medullary thyroid cancer patients.
• Stable disease was the most common imaging benefit, seen in 53% of patients.
• Blood marker disease control occurred in 52% of patients; overall biomarker response was 32%.
• [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE had 64% imaging disease control and 7% side effects, versus 50% and 24% for [90Y]Y-DOTATOC.
• Severe side effects occurred in only about 3% of patients, but evidence came mostly from retrospective studies without randomized trials.

Understanding Medullary Thyroid Cancer and the Treatment Gap

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare type of neuroendocrine tumor (a cancer that arises from hormone-producing cells) that develops in the parafollicular C cells of the thyroid gland. These are the cells responsible for producing calcitonin, a hormone that helps regulate calcium levels in the body.

MTC represents only 1–2% of all thyroid cancers. It is much less common than the differentiated thyroid cancers (papillary and follicular), which most people associate with thyroid disease.

The disease occurs in two main forms:

• Sporadic MTC (75–80% of cases): occurs in older adults without a family history of the disease
• Familial MTC (20–25% of cases): inherited and often linked to a genetic condition called multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2), which predisposes people to tumors in multiple hormone-producing glands

Surgery to remove the tumor is generally curative when the cancer is confined to the thyroid. However, a subset of MTC tumors behaves aggressively and spreads (metastasizes) to other parts of the body. For these patients with progressive or metastatic disease, treatment has historically been challenging.

Traditional chemotherapy has shown only limited benefit. Objective response rates (ORR, meaning the percentage of patients whose tumors measurably shrink) are typically below 20%. In recent years, two targeted oral medications called tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) — vandetanib and cabozantinib — have been approved by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for progressive or metastatic MTC.

However, these drugs come with a significant burden. High-grade adverse events (severe side effects) occur in more than 36% of patients treated with TKIs. This substantial toxicity profile has created a clear need for alternative systemic treatment options that can control the disease without such a heavy side-effect toll.

Why Researchers Conducted This Study

Recent advances in the field of radiotheranostics — a term combining "therapy" and "diagnostics" — have led to the development of drugs that deliver targeted radiation directly to cancer cells. These agents work by attaching to somatostatin receptors (SSTRs), which are proteins found in high numbers on the surface of many neuroendocrine tumor cells.

One such agent, called [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE, received FDA and EMA approval for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NENs, a type of neuroendocrine tumor arising in the digestive system) after the landmark NETTER-1 trial demonstrated its effectiveness. This approval raised the question: could the same strategy work for medullary thyroid cancer, which is also a neuroendocrine tumor that often expresses somatostatin receptors?

While several narrative reviews (expert summaries without systematic methodology) suggested that SSTR-based peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) might benefit MTC patients, no systematic review or meta-analysis had yet pooled the available evidence specifically for progressive or metastatic MTC. This study aimed to fill that gap by systematically collecting, evaluating, and statistically combining all published clinical data on the safety and efficacy of SSTR PRRT in this patient population.

Study Methods: How the Research Was Conducted

This meta-analysis was carefully planned and registered in advance in an international database of systematic reviews. The registration number is PROSPERO ID: CRD42022350984. The researchers followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, which are internationally recognized standards for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Search strategy. Three major medical databases — PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science — were systematically searched from their inception dates through April 22, 2025. Three authors independently conducted the searches using MeSH- and Emtree-based keywords to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Eligibility criteria. To be included, studies had to be original research articles that specifically assessed the safety and efficacy of SSTR PRRT in patients with MTC in clinical (human) settings. The researchers excluded duplicate publications, book chapters, case reports, case series, review articles, conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, preclinical studies, and articles unrelated to the research question.

Data extraction. From each study that met the inclusion criteria, the researchers extracted detailed information including the primary author's name, year of publication, country, research design, patient cohort size, imaging modality used, median patient age, prior lines of therapy, the specific PRRT agent used, number of treatment cycles, dosing strategy, biochemical markers, imaging evaluation results, and the response criteria applied for both biochemical and imaging endpoints.

Quality assessment. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohorts and Cross-Sectional Studies. This tool evaluates 14 criteria and assigns studies to one of three quality levels:

• "Good": scores of 9–14 points
• "Fair": scores of 5–8 points
• "Poor": scores of 0–4 points

Statistical analysis. Pooled estimates of key outcomes — including the disease control rate (DCR, the percentage of patients whose disease either stabilizes or shrinks), overall response rate (ORR), partial response (PR) rate, stable disease (SD) rate, complete response (CR) rate, and adverse event rate — were calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs, a range that indicates the statistical certainty of the estimate).

The researchers applied a fixed-effects model when fewer than five studies were available for a given analysis, and a random-effects model when five or more studies were available. Publication bias (the tendency for positive results to be published more often than negative ones) was assessed using Egger's test when at least three studies were available. For analyses with ten or more studies, additional visual tools (Doi plots and the Luis Furuya–Kanamori index) were used.

Between-study heterogeneity (the degree to which study results differ from each other) was quantified using the inconsistency index (I²). Values below 50% were considered low to moderate heterogeneity; values above 50% indicated substantial to considerable heterogeneity. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analysis was performed using Stata software, version 17.0.

The 11 Studies: Patients, Treatments, and Study Designs

The initial literature search retrieved 626 articles from the three databases: 217 from PubMed, 209 from Scopus, and 200 from Web of Science. After removing 357 duplicates, 269 titles and abstracts were screened. Most records were excluded because they did not meet the study objectives. Ultimately, 11 articles fulfilled all eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis.

These 11 studies, published between 2003 and 2023, included a total of 177 MTC patients who received 498 SSTR PRRT treatment cycles. The median age of patients ranged from 35 to 62 years across the studies, with a slight male predominance (57% male).

Study designs varied:

• 9 studies were retrospective (looking back at medical records)
• 2 studies were prospective (following patients forward in time)

In terms of disease type, familial MTC was reported in only 15 patients across four studies, while the vast majority of patients (>91%) had the sporadic form of the disease.

Baseline imaging approaches. Before treatment, doctors used imaging scans to assess the extent of disease:

• 7 studies used [111In]In-octreotide scanning (SPECT, single photon emission computed tomography)
• 4 studies used [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide scanning (PET, positron emission tomography)

Dosing schedules. Most studies (8 of 11, or 73%) administered PRRT in a cyclic dosage format (discrete treatment cycles). A smaller proportion (3 studies, 27%) used a fractionated dosing regimen, in which the total dose is divided into smaller fractions given more frequently.

Response evaluation. Imaging responses were evaluated using conventional imaging (CT or MRI) in 6 studies and molecular imaging (PET or SPECT) in 5 studies. Biochemical response was assessed by measuring changes in blood levels of two tumor markers: serum thyrocalcitonin (TC, also called calcitonin — the hormone produced by the C cells) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA, a general tumor marker).

Safety reporting. Nine studies reported side effects using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, a standardized grading system where grade 1 is mild and grade 4–5 is severe or fatal). The remaining two studies used the World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity criteria.

Geographic distribution. Seven studies were conducted in Europe (Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Germany), two in India, one in Iran, and one in Brazil. The specific countries were: Netherlands (2 studies), Italy (2 studies), Switzerland (2 studies), Germany (1 study), India (2 studies), Iran (1 study), and Brazil (1 study).

Quality ratings. Seven studies were rated as "good" quality and four as "fair" quality. No studies were rated as "poor."

Key Findings: Overall Results Across All Treatments

When the data from all eligible studies were pooled together, the results showed that SSTR PRRT meaningfully controls disease in a substantial proportion of patients with advanced MTC.

Biochemical (Blood Marker) Response

Biochemical response refers to whether blood levels of calcitonin and CEA decreased after treatment. These markers are important because they reflect the overall tumor burden in the body.

Disease control rate (DCR): Six studies, covering 362 PRRT cycles given to 118 patients, reported biochemical disease control data. The pooled disease control rate was 52% (95% CI: 43–61%). This means that slightly more than half of patients (about 1 in 2) achieved either stable or reduced tumor marker levels. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies or evidence of publication bias (p > 0.76 for both), meaning the results were consistent across studies.

Overall response rate (ORR): Four studies, covering 302 cycles given to 103 patients, reported biochemical response data. The pooled overall response rate was 32% (95% CI: 23–42%), meaning about 1 in 3 patients had a meaningful reduction in tumor markers. No significant publication bias was detected (p = 0.81).

Type of response: Partial response (PR, meaning a significant but incomplete reduction in tumor markers) was the most common favorable biochemical outcome, achieved in 27% of patients (95% CI: 18–36%), followed by stable disease (SD) and complete response (CR).

Imaging (Radiological) Response

Imaging response refers to whether tumors visibly shrink or stabilize on CT, MRI, or molecular imaging scans.

Disease control rate: All 11 studies, covering 498 cycles given to 177 patients, reported imaging-based disease control. The pooled DCR was 58% (95% CI: 46–70%), with no significant heterogeneity (I² = 48.4%) or publication bias (p > 0.07 for both). This means that more than half of patients (roughly 6 in 10) achieved tumor stabilization or shrinkage visible on scans.

Overall response rate: Seven studies, covering 392 cycles given to 142 patients, reported imaging response data. The pooled ORR was 17% (95% CI: 7–26%). No significant publication bias was detected (I² = 43.6%, p = 0.09).

Type of response: Stable disease (SD) was the most frequent imaging outcome, observed in a cumulative 53% of patients (95% CI: 44–62%). This means that for many patients, the main benefit of PRRT was keeping the cancer from growing rather than shrinking it. Partial responses were observed in a smaller proportion, followed by complete responses (CR), which were rare.

Key Findings: Comparing [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE and [90Y]Y-DOTATOC

The two most commonly used PRRT agents in the included studies were [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE and [90Y]Y-DOTATOC. These differ in the radioactive isotope attached to the somatostatin-targeting molecule, which affects the type and depth of radiation delivered to tumors. The researchers performed subgroup analyses to compare them directly.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE: Results from 5 Studies

[177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE is the agent that received FDA and EMA approval for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. In this analysis of MTC patients, it showed the following results:

Biochemical (blood marker) responses:

• Disease control rate: 51% (95% CI: 38–64%) based on 3 studies
• Overall response rate: 37% (95% CI: 23–58%) based on 2 studies
• Partial response: 27% of patients
• Stable disease: 26% of patients
• Complete response: 12% of patients

Imaging responses:

• Disease control rate: 64% (95% CI: 52–75%) based on 5 studies, with no significant heterogeneity or publication bias (p > 0.4 for both)
• Overall response rate: 18% (95% CI: 10–49%) based on 3 studies
• Stable disease was the most common outcome: 53% (95% CI: 35–70%)
• Partial response: 18% of cases
• Complete responses: none recorded on imaging assessments

[90Y]Y-DOTATOC: Results from Up to 4 Studies

[90Y]Y-DOTATOC uses a different radioactive isotope (yttrium-90) that delivers radiation with higher energy and deeper tissue penetration. Its results in MTC patients were as follows:

Biochemical responses:

• Disease control rate: 52% (95% CI: 43–58%) based on 2 studies
• Overall response rate: 29% (95% CI: 17–42%) based on 2 studies
• Partial response: 27% of patients
• Stable disease: 23% of patients
• Complete response: 5% of patients

Imaging responses:

• Disease control rate: 50% (95% CI: 28–72%) based on 4 studies
• Overall response rate: 20% (95% CI: 8–37%) based on 3 studies
• Stable disease: 50% of patients
• Partial response: 25% of patients
• Complete response: 10% of patients

Direct Comparison: Which Agent Performed Better?

When the researchers directly compared the two agents, several differences emerged:

• Imaging disease control: [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE achieved a slightly higher imaging DCR (64% versus 50%)
• Biochemical disease control: The two agents were comparable (51% for [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE versus 52% for [90Y]Y-DOTATOC)
• Biochemical overall response: [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE achieved a higher biochemical ORR (37% versus 29%)
• Overall toxicity: [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE had a substantially lower overall toxicity rate (7% versus 24%)
• Kidney (renal) toxicity: No renal toxicity was observed with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE, whereas [90Y]Y-DOTATOC caused kidney toxicity at a pooled rate of 6%, mostly low-grade

Why might [90Y]Y-DOTATOC cause more side effects? The researchers explain that this is likely due to its higher β-emission energy, greater tissue penetration depth, and increased off-target radiation exposure to healthy tissues. However, they also note that differences in dosing regimens across studies — such as single versus multiple cycles, total cumulative activity, and the use of kidney-protective agents — may have influenced the observed toxicity patterns.

Side Effects: What the Safety Analysis Found

Understanding the side-effect profile of any cancer treatment is essential for patients weighing their options. The safety analysis pooled data from the studies that documented treatment-related toxicities.

Overall toxicity rate. Seven of the 11 studies documented PRRT-associated toxicities. The pooled incidence rate of any side effect was 15% (95% CI: 5–29%). This means that about 1 in 7 patients experienced some form of treatment-related side effect.

Types of side effects. The majority of adverse effects affected two body systems:

• Gastrointestinal system (digestive tract): including nausea, vomiting, or abdominal discomfort
• Hematopoietic system (blood and bone marrow): including lowered blood cell counts

Severity of side effects. An important finding was that low-grade toxicities (grade 1–2, meaning mild to moderate) predominated over high-grade events (grade 3–4, meaning severe or potentially life-threatening). The pooled rate was 13% for low-grade versus 3% for high-grade events.

High-grade events were rare overall. Across all studies, only four instances of grade 3 hematotoxicity (severe blood-related toxicity) and one instance of grade 4 nephrotoxicity (severe kidney toxicity) were reported.

Side Effects by Treatment Agent

[177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE safety profile. The pooled incidence of any-grade toxicity was just 7% (95% CI: 0–22%) across the three studies that reported safety data. The breakdown was:

• Grade 1–2 gastrointestinal effects: 3% (95% CI: 1–7%)
• Grade 1–2 hematologic (blood) toxicity: 1% (95% CI: 0–3%)
• Notably, no high-grade hematologic or gastrointestinal adverse events were reported at all
• No kidney toxicity was observed

[90Y]Y-DOTATOC safety profile. Any-grade adverse events occurred in 24% (95% CI: 7–45%) of patients across four studies. The breakdown was:

• Low-grade (grade 1–2) toxicity: 18% (95% CI: 6–33%)
• High-grade (grade 3–4) adverse events: 3% (95% CI: 0–12%)
• Grade 1–2 gastrointestinal effects: 29% (95% CI: 12–55%) — notably higher than with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE
• Grade 1–2 hematologic toxicity: 17% of patients
• Grade 1 kidney toxicity: 6% of patients
• Grade 3 hematologic toxicity: 2% of patients
• Grade 4 kidney toxicity: 1% of patients

In plain terms, [90Y]Y-DOTATOC was associated with roughly three times more side effects overall than [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE, and unlike [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE, it carried a small but real risk of kidney damage.

What This Means for Patients

These findings have several important implications for patients living with advanced medullary thyroid cancer:

1. A new treatment option is emerging. For patients whose MTC has progressed despite surgery, chemotherapy, or TKI therapy, SSTR PRRT offers a promising alternative. This meta-analysis shows that disease can be controlled in more than half of patients — about 52% by blood marker criteria and 58% by imaging criteria.

2. Disease stabilization is a realistic goal. Patients should understand that the most common benefit of PRRT is keeping the cancer from growing (stable disease) rather than shrinking it. On imaging, stable disease was seen in 53% of patients overall. In cancer care, stopping tumor growth is a meaningful and valuable outcome that can translate into more stable health and quality of life.

3. Blood markers matter. The biochemical response rates are particularly notable: about one-third of patients (32%) achieved a meaningful reduction in calcitonin or CEA levels. For patients who can see their tumor markers dropping on blood tests, this provides tangible evidence that the treatment is working.

4. The side-effect profile compares favorably to alternatives. With the currently approved TKI drugs (vandetanib and cabozantinib), more than 36% of patients experience severe (high-grade) side effects. By contrast, this analysis of PRRT found that severe side effects occurred in only about 3% of patients overall. For [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE specifically, severe side effects were essentially absent in the pooled data.

5. The choice of agent matters. If both agents are available, the data suggest that [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE may offer a better balance of effectiveness and safety. It achieved slightly better imaging disease control (64% versus 50%), comparable blood-marker disease control (51% versus 52%), a higher blood-marker response rate (37% versus 29%), and a substantially better safety profile — especially regarding the kidneys.

6. PRRT requires SSTR expression. For PRRT to work, tumors must express somatostatin receptors, which is confirmed before treatment through imaging scans (as done in the included studies, using either [111In]In-octreotide SPECT or [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide PET scans). Patients who are considering PRRT should discuss with their care team whether their tumors demonstrate sufficient receptor expression on these scans.

Limitations: What This Study Could Not Prove

While this meta-analysis provides the most comprehensive evidence to date on PRRT for MTC, the researchers acknowledge several important limitations that patients and clinicians should keep in mind:

Predominance of retrospective, single-center studies. Nine of the 11 included studies were retrospective (looking back at medical records) and were conducted at single institutions. This study design carries inherent risks of bias. Only two studies were prospective (following patients forward in time).

Geographic concentration. Seven of the 11 studies came from Europe, with the remainder from India (2), Iran (1), and Brazil (1). It is unclear whether results would be similar in other patient populations or health care settings.

Heterogeneity of treatments and patients. The studies varied in the PRRT agents used, dosing regimens (cyclic versus fractionated), number of cycles, total radiation activity administered, and use of kidney-protective medications. Some studies included heavily pre-treated patients who had received four or more prior lines of therapy. This variability in patient history could affect tumor biology, treatment resistance patterns, and toxicity risk in ways that the meta-analysis could not fully account for.

Limited ability to perform deeper statistical analysis. While subgroup analyses addressed some of the variability between studies, meta-regression (a statistical technique that could have examined how specific factors influence outcomes) was not possible due to the limited number of studies. Correlation analyses between how much radiation patients received and how likely they were to experience side effects could not be performed for the [90Y]Y-DOTATOC data.

Insufficient data on [111In]In-octreotide. The researchers could not evaluate the safety and efficacy of [111In]In-octreotide as a therapeutic agent because only single studies were available — not enough for pooled statistical analysis.

No randomized controlled trials. None of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (the gold standard for medical evidence). This means the results should be interpreted as promising but not definitive proof of superiority over other treatments.

Recommendations and Future Directions

Based on their findings, the researchers make several recommendations for the future of PRRT in medullary thyroid cancer:

For clinical practice:

• SSTR PRRT should be considered a viable therapeutic option for patients with metastatic or progressive MTC, particularly for those who have exhausted or cannot tolerate other treatment options
• [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE appears to offer the most favorable balance of disease control and safety based on currently available data
• Kidney function monitoring is advisable, especially for patients receiving [90Y]Y-DOTATOC, given its small but real risk of even high-grade kidney toxicity

For future research:

1. Standardized eligibility criteria should be developed so that future studies enroll similar patient populations, making results more comparable
2. Harmonized imaging protocols should be adopted across centers to ensure consistent response assessment
3. Adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to definitively establish the role of PRRT in MTC and to compare it head-to-head with standard treatments like TKIs
4. Correlation analyses between toxicity and cumulative administered activity of [90Y]Y-DOTATOC should be performed to better define dose–toxicity relationships and optimize therapeutic safety
5. Future investigations should explore how prior treatment history affects PRRT outcomes, so that doctors can better select which patients will benefit most

The researchers conclude that SSTR PRRT is a promising therapeutic option for patients with advanced medullary thyroid cancer, achieving reliable disease control — in more than half of patients by both imaging and biochemical measures — with a favorable safety profile that compares well with currently approved systemic therapies. For patients running out of options, this targeted radiation approach offers genuine hope.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for medullary thyroid cancer?

PRRT is a targeted radiation treatment that attaches a radioactive substance to a molecule that seeks out somatostatin receptors on tumor cells. In this analysis of 177 patients with advanced medullary thyroid cancer, disease was controlled in more than half of patients by imaging and blood marker tests. It is given in cycles.

Who might be considered for PRRT for advanced medullary thyroid cancer?

PRRT may be an option for patients with metastatic or progressive medullary thyroid cancer, especially those who have exhausted or cannot tolerate other treatments like tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Before treatment, imaging scans must show that the tumors have enough somatostatin receptors. In the analyzed studies, most patients had sporadic disease and many had prior treatments.

How effective is PRRT at controlling advanced medullary thyroid cancer?

Across 11 studies, imaging showed disease control in 58% of patients, meaning tumors stabilized or shrank. Stable disease was the most common imaging outcome, seen in 53%. Blood marker disease control was 52%. Overall response by imaging, meaning tumor shrinkage, was 17%. Stabilization is often the main benefit.

What side effects can PRRT cause for medullary thyroid cancer?

In this analysis, about 1 in 7 patients experienced any side effect. Most were mild to moderate, like nausea, vomiting, or low blood counts. Severe side effects occurred in about 3% of patients. The [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE agent had fewer side effects than [90Y]Y-DOTATOC, and no kidney toxicity was seen with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE.

Which PRRT agent appears better for medullary thyroid cancer based on this review?

Comparing the two most used agents, [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE showed slightly higher imaging disease control (64% versus 50%) and fewer overall side effects (7% versus 24%). Blood marker disease control was similar. [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE had no observed kidney toxicity, while [90Y]Y-DOTATOC had a small kidney toxicity risk. These findings are from pooled observational studies.

What limitations should I know about this PRRT evidence?

This was a meta-analysis of 11 studies, mostly retrospective and single-center, with no randomized trials. Seven of 11 studies were from Europe. Treatments varied in dosing and patient history. The results are promising but not definitive proof that PRRT is superior to other treatments. Discuss with your oncology team whether PRRT is appropriate for your situation.

My medullary thyroid cancer has spread despite treatment — should I ask for a second opinion before deciding between PRRT and a targeted TKI drug?

A second opinion is worth seeking if your medullary thyroid cancer has progressed or spread and your doctor has suggested PRRT or a TKI. No randomized controlled trial has compared these approaches directly, so treatment choice can be uncertain. In pooled data, PRRT controlled disease in about 52% of patients by blood markers and 58% by imaging; the [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE form showed better imaging control (64% vs 50%) and fewer side effects (7% vs 24%) than [90Y]Y-DOTATOC, while TKIs cause severe side effects in over 36% of patients. A second opinion can help clarify which option fits your situation. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.

Source Information

Original article title: Safety and efficacy of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for advanced medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors: Abdlkadir AS, Al-Adhami D, Shi H, Sathekge MM, Sheikha AA, Mohamad I, Kreissl M, Al-Ibraheem A.

Journal: Thyroid Research (2026) 19:7

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13044-026-00290-x

Registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022350984

Publication type: Open Access review article

This patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research. It was written to help patients and caregivers understand the findings of the original scientific study. Anyone considering PRRT or other treatments for medullary thyroid cancer should discuss the risks and benefits with their oncology care team. The original article is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.