What specific peer‑reviewed studies has William Makis authored on targeted radionuclide therapy and what do they conclude?
Executive summary
Dr. William Makis is repeatedly described in online profiles as an author of “more than 100” peer‑reviewed publications in nuclear medicine and targeted radionuclide therapy, and as a clinician who led large institutional experience with 177Lu‑DOTATATE (Lutathera) PRRT for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) [1] [2] [3]. The provided reporting, however, does not supply a bibliography or full citations of those peer‑reviewed studies; available research listings (ResearchGate snippets and institutional summaries) primarily show case reports and retrospective series involving Lu‑DOTATATE/PRRT with conclusions of clinical and symptomatic benefit in individual patients or small cohorts [4].
1. What the public profiles and promotional sites actually document
Multiple self‑descriptions and third‑party profiles assert that Makis supervised a large single‑institution Lutathera phase II trial with ~250 NET patients and authored over 100 peer‑reviewed articles advancing 177Lu‑DOTATATE and PET/CT molecular imaging [1] [2]. These are claims made on an Academia.edu profile (seeking to establish theranostics centers) and on personal/clinic websites which emphasize experience in theranostics and research output [1] [5] [2]. The sources provided do not, however, attach DOIs, journal names, or article titles that would permit independent verification from the material supplied here [1] [2].
2. The studies that can be seen in available research listings and their typical conclusions
ResearchGate excerpts and summaries in the reporting point to multiple case reports and small retrospective series authored or co‑authored by Makis that involve peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 177Lu‑DOTATATE for NETs and other somatostatin‑receptor–expressing tumors; outcomes described include symptomatic improvement, reduced tumor burden on imaging, and durable responses following induction and maintenance cycles in individual patients [4]. For example, a 73‑year‑old man with metastatic small bowel NET reportedly showed improved symptoms and mobility after induction and maintenance Lu‑DOTATATE PRRT, and other entries reference treatment of paragangliomas and esthesioneuroblastoma with radiolabeled somatostatin analogues and Lu‑177 DOTATATE [4]. Those case‑level conclusions are consistent with the limited scope of case reports—clinical or imaging benefit in select patients—rather than randomized, practice‑defining evidence [4].
3. How these claimed publications fit with the broader peer‑reviewed evidence on PRRT
Independent, peer‑reviewed literature summarized in systematic reviews and textbooks concludes that targeted radionuclide therapies such as 177Lu‑DOTATATE produce clinically meaningful responses in selected neuroendocrine tumor patients and have become an established option in that setting, offering symptom control and progression‑free survival benefits in trials and series (context from NCBI/PMC review) [6] [7]. The reporting on Makis’s work, as provided, suggests his publications align with this clinical niche—PRRT for NETs—but the materials here do not allow assessment of how many of his works are original trials, retrospective analyses, or case reports, nor whether any are randomized or multicenter pivotal trials [6] [7] [4].
4. Where the reporting stops and verification is needed
The assembled sources repeatedly state a high publication count and leadership role in a large Lutathera trial, yet none of the provided pages supply verifiable citations (journal names, article titles, PubMed IDs, or DOIs) to confirm specific peer‑reviewed studies or to extract their exact conclusions beyond short ResearchGate abstracts and promotional claims [1] [2] [4]. Additionally, several personal pages emphasize alternative/re‑purposed drug protocols and advocacy activity, and one compiled package notes regulatory/licensing disputes—information that suggests potential competing agendas in some public communications and underscores the need to cross‑check scholarly outputs in independent bibliographic databases [5] [8].
5. Bottom line: what can be concluded from the provided reporting
From the material supplied, it is supportable to state that Makis has authored peer‑reviewed case reports and institutional retrospective pieces describing the use of Lu‑DOTATATE PRRT with reported symptomatic and imaging responses in NET and rare neuroendocrine‑type tumors [4]. Claims of supervising a 250‑patient phase II Lutathera trial and of authoring “100+” peer‑reviewed publications appear repeatedly but are not substantiated here with primary bibliographic details; therefore, a precise list of his peer‑reviewed studies and their formal conclusions cannot be produced from the provided sources alone and requires retrieval from PubMed, Scopus, or journal archives for definitive citation [1] [2] [4].