Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25068592›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Endoscopic biopsy in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective study.

Xiao Han, Yun Cui, Chuanhua Yang, Weili Sun, Jianghong Wu, Yunjie Gao, Hanbing Xue, Xiaobo Li, Lei Shen, Yanshen Peng and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiao HanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Yun CuiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Chuanhua YangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Weili SunDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Jianghong WuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Yunjie GaoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Hanbing XueDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Xiaobo LiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Lei ShenDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Yanshen PengDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Hanhui ZhangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Yan HuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Liying ZhongDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyu ChenDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Zhizheng GeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (GI-NENs) are often located in the deep mucosa or submucosa, and the efficacy of endoscopic biopsy for diagnosis and treatment of GI-NENs is not fully understood.

objectiveThe current study analyzed GI-NENs, especially those diagnosed pathologically and resected endoscopically, and focused on the biopsy and cold biopsy forceps polypectomy (CBP) to analyze their roles in diagnosing and treating GI-NENs.

methodsClinical data of all GI-NENs were reviewed from January 2006 to March 2012. Histopathology was used to diagnose GI-NENs, which were confirmed by immunohistochemistry.

results67.96% GI-NENs were diagnosed pathologically by endoscopy. Only 26.21% were diagnosed pathologically by biopsies before treatment. The diagnostic rate was significantly higher in polypoid (76.47%) and submucosal lesions (68.75%), than in ulcerative lesions (12.00%). However, biopsies were only taken in 56.31% patients, including 51.52% of polypoid lesions, 35.56% of submucosal lesions and 100.00% of ulcerative lesions. Endoscopic resection removed 61.76% of GI-NENs, including six by CBP, 14 by snare polypectomy with electrocauterization, 28 by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and 15 by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). 51.52% polypoid GI-NENs had infiltrated the submucosa under microscopic examination. CBP had a significantly higher rate of remnant (33.33%) than snare polypectomy with electrocauterization, EMR and ESD (all 0.00%).

conclusionsBiopsies for all polypoid and submucosal lesions will improve pre-operative diagnosis. The high rate of submucosal infiltration of polypoid GI-NENs determined that CBP was inadequate in the treatment of GI-NENs. Diminutive polypoid GI-NENs that disappeared after CBP had a high risk of remnant and should be closely followed up over the long term.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyFemaleGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25068592
PMCPMC4113367
OpenAlexW2072973092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.