Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928025›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2015

Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: a retrospective single-center analysis using the ENETS TNM-classification and immunohistochemical markers for risk stratification.

Stefan M Brunner, Florian Weber, Jens M Werner, Ayman Agha, Stefan A Farkas, Hans J Schlitt, Matthias Hornung

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Status and Extent of Lymphadenectomy in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Confined To and Extending Beyond the Pancreas.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

7 authors.

Stefan M BrunnerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. stefan.brunner@ukr.de.
Florian WeberInstitute of Pathology, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Jens M WernerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Ayman AghaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Stefan A FarkasDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Hans J SchlittDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Matthias HornungDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study was performed to assess the 2006 introduced ENETS TNM-classification with respect to patient survival and surgical approach for patients who underwent surgery for a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas (PNET).

methodsBetween 2001 and 2010 38 patients after resection of a PNET were investigated regarding tumor localization and size. Further, patient survival with regards to the new TNM-classification, the operation methods and immunohistochemical markers was analyzed.

resultsThe estimated mean survival time of the 38 patients was 91 ± 10 months (female 116 ± 9, male 56 ± 14 months; p = 0.008). The 5-year survival rate was 63.9%. Patient survival differed significantly depending on tumor size (pT1 107 ± 13, pT2 94 ± 16, pT3 44 ± 7 and pT4 18 ± 14 months; P = 0.006). Patients without lymph node metastasis survived significantly longer compared to patients with positive lymph node status (108 ± 9 vs. 19 ± 5 months; P < 0.001). However, survival in patients with and without distant metastasis did not differ significantly (92 ± 11 vs. 80 ± 23 months; P = 0.876). Further, the tumor grading significantly influenced patient survival (G1 111 ± 12, G2 68 ± 12 and G3 21 ± 14 months; P = 0.037).

conclusionsAs part of the TNM-classification especially lymph node status and also tumor size and grading were identified as important factors determining patient survival. Further, gender was demonstrated to significantly influence survival time. If an R0 resection was achieved in patients with distant metastases patient survival was comparable to patients without metastasis.

Indexed as

PancreatectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurvival AnalysisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID25928025
PMCPMC4451725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.