ArticleKorean journal of pathology2013
Proposal for a standardized pathology report of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: prognostic significance of pathological parameters.
Article in Korean journal of pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Prognostic Risk Factors of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) and Curative Resection of Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Standardization of the pathologic diagnosis of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2021Review
- Primary renal well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors: report of six cases with an emphasis on the Ki-67 index and mitosis.Diagnostic pathology · 2019Article
- Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms at magnetic resonance imaging: comparison between grade 3 and grade 1/2 tumors.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
- Early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.Oncology letters · 2016Article
- p27 Loss Is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.Cancer research and treatment · 2014Article
- Spectrum of Gastroenteropancreatic NENs in Routine Histological Examinations of Bioptic and Surgical Specimen: A Study of 161 Cases Collected from 17 Departments of Pathology in the Czech Republic.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is confusion in the diagnosis and biological behaviors of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), because of independently proposed nomenclatures and classifications. A standardized form of pathology report is required for the proper management of patients.
methodsWe discussed the proper pathological evaluation of GEP-NET at the consensus conference of the subcommittee meeting for the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. We then verified the prognostic significance of pathological parameters from our previous nationwide collection of pathological data from 28 hospitals in Korea to determine the essential data set for a pathology report.
resultsHistological classification, grading (mitosis and/or Ki-67 labeling index), T staging (extent, size), lymph node metastasis, and lymphovascular and perineural invasion were significant prognostic factors and essential for the pathology report of GEP-NET, while immunostaining such as synaptophysin and chromogranin may be optional. Furthermore, the staging system, either that of the 2010 American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) or the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), should be specified, especially for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.
conclusionsA standardized pathology report is crucial for the proper management and prediction of prognosis of patients with GEP-NET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.