Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733935›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2018

G3 GEP NENs category: are basic and clinical investigations well integrated?

Massimo Milione, Nicola Fazio

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Massimo Milione1st Division of Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, IRCCS Foundation National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy. Massimo.milione@istitutotumori.mi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-1202-139X
Nicola FazioUnit of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grade 3, all of them with >20% Ki-67, can be heterogeneous on the basis of their morphological features, comprising well and poorly differentiated neoplasms; the former are named tumors and the latter carcinomas. Several papers about gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grade 3 heterogeneity have been reporting over the last years by clinicians and pathologists, indicating that the differential diagnosis between named tumors grade 3 and named carcinomas grade 3 may be relevant in defining a different approach in terms of characterization of disease, staging, and treatment. To well define the sub-type of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grade 3 pathologist's expertise in recognizing tumor morphology, immunohistochemical, and molecular techniques were reported remarkable. Although current evidence about grade 3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms heterogeneity is still far from producing validated specific therapies for specific subcategories, the hypotheses generated from the several retrospective analyses published so far on this topic represent solid bases for designing prospective therapeutic clinical trials in homogenous clinical settings.

Indexed as

HumansIntestinal NeoplasmsNeoplasm GradingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsG3Ki-67NECNENNET G3

Identifiers

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.