Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26632896›Full record

ArticleMedicine2015

Survival Analyses for Patients With Surgically Resected Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors by World Health Organization 2010 Grading Classifications and American Joint Committee on Cancer 2010 Staging Systems.

Min Yang, Neng-Wen Ke, Yi Zhang, Lin Zeng, Chun-Lu Tan, Hao Zhang, Gang Mai, Bo-le Tian, Xu-Bao Liu

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Impact ofFrontiers in endocrinology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Min YangFrom the Department of Pancreatic Surgery (MY, N-wK, YZ, C-lT, HZ, GM, B-lT, X-bL); General Ward of Sports Medicine & Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation (LZ), West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Neng-Wen Ke
Yi Zhang
Lin Zeng
Chun-Lu Tan
Hao Zhang
Gang Mai
Bo-le Tian
Xu-Bao Liu
X-Fab (Germany) · DECreative Commons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2010, World Health Organization (WHO) reclassified pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) into 4 main groups: neuroendocrine tumor G1 (NET G1), neuroendocrine tumor G2 (NET G2), neuroendocrine carcinoma G3 (NEC G3), mixed adeno and neuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC). Clinical value of these newly updated WHO grading criteria has not been rigorously validated. The authors aimed to evaluate the clinical consistency of the new 2010 grading classifications by WHO and the 2010 tumor-node metastasis staging systems by American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) on survivals for patients with surgically resected p-NETs. Moreover, the authors would validate the prognostic value of both criteria for p-NETs.The authors retrospectively collected the clinicopathologic data of 120 eligible patients who were all surgically treated and histopathologically diagnosed as p-NETs from January 2004 to February 2014 in our single institution. The new WHO criteria were assigned to 4 stratified groups with a respective distribution of 62, 35, 17, and 6 patients. Patients with NET G1 or NET G2 obtained a statistically better survival compared with those with NEC G3 or MANEC (P < 0.001). Survivals of NET G1 was also better than those of NET G2 (P = 0.023), whereas difference of survivals between NEC G3 and MANEC present no obvious significance (P = 0.071). The AJCC 2010 staging systems were respectively defined in 61, 36, 12, and 11 patients for each stage. Differences of survivals of stage I with stage III and IV were significant (P < 0.001), as well as those of stage II with III and IV (P < 0.001); whereas comparisons of stage I with stage II and stage III with IV were not statistically significant (P = 0.129, P = 0.286; respectively). Together with radical resection, these 2 systems were both significant in univariate and multivariate analysis (P < 0.05).The newly updated WHO 2010 grading classifications and the AJCC 2010 staging systems could consistently reflect the clinical outcome of patients with surgically resected p-NETs. Meanwhile, both criteria could be independent predictors for survival analysis of p-NETs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26632896
PMCPMC4674199
OpenAlexW2334507554

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.