ArticleMedicine2016
Comparison of the prognostic values of the 2010 WHO classification, AJCC 7th edition, and ENETS classification of gastric neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammation-Related Long Non-Coding RNA Signature Predicts the Prognosis of Gastric Carcinoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Predictive Value of Combined Preoperative Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level and Ki-67 Index in Patients With Gastric Neuroendocrine Carcinoma After Radical Surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Prognostic value of the 2017 World Health Organization Classification System for gastric neuroendocrine tumors: A single-center experience.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Histopathologist-level quantification of Ki-67 immunoexpression in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors using semiautomated method.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasias: manifestations and comparative outcomes.Endocrine-related cancer · 2019Article
- MicroRNA-140-5p inhibits cell proliferation, migration and promotes cell apoptosis in gastric cancer through the negative regulation of THY1-mediated Notch signaling.Bioscience reports · 2019Article
- Gastric adenocarcinoma is concurrent with metastatic neuroendocrine cancer treated with nivolumab and chemotherapy: A case report.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2018Article
- Pattern and risk factors for distant metastases in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- 68-Gallium DOTATATE scanning in symptomatic patients with negative anatomic imaging but suspected neuroendocrine tumor.International journal of endocrine oncology · 2018Article
- Development and validation of a prognostic signature for preoperative prediction of overall survival in gastric cancer patients.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Article
- Differentially Expressed lncRNAs in Gastric Cancer Patients: A Potential Biomarker for Gastric Cancer Prognosis.Journal of Cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability of the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) system, 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) grading system, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system to predict survival after gastric neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resection has not yet been validated.We retrospectively evaluated 175 gastric NETs from 1996 to 2014. WHO grade 3 (G3) patients (n = 66) had a lower survival rate than grade 1 (G1) (n = 39) or grade 2 (G2) (n = 13) patients, with similar high survival rates for G1 and G2 patients. G3 patients had a lower survival rate than mixed-type patients (n = 57). Using the AJCC classification, most of the G1/2 NETs (86.6%) were confined to T1/T2, N0 tumor, and stage I/IIa, but the survival rate was not well distributed. In contrast, G3/mixed tumors were well distributed in terms of T, N, stage, and survival. Using the ENETS classification, 64.6% of the tumors were T2 and only 8.6% were T3. In addition, 49.7% were stage IIIb and only 1.9% was IIa, with poor survival distribution.Our findings strongly suggested that the WHO and ENETS classification systems have shown a low prognostic value. The AJCC TNM system showed a low prognostic value for well-differentiated NETs (G1 or G2). In contrast, the AJCC TNM system had a high prognostic value for G3 or mixed tumors.
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.