Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29330208›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2018

Neuroendocrine Tumor Heterogeneity Adds Uncertainty to the World Health Organization 2010 Classification: Real-World Data from the Spanish Tumor Registry (R-GETNE).

Barbara Nuñez-Valdovinos, Alberto Carmona-Bayonas, Paula Jimenez-Fonseca, Jaume Capdevila, Ángel Castaño-Pascual, Marta Benavent, Jose Javier Pi Barrio, Alex Teule, Vicente Alonso, Ana Custodio and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Quantification ofNuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors.

Barbara Nuñez-ValdovinosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Alberto Carmona-BayonasDepartment of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, UMU, IMIB, Murcia, Spain.
Paula Jimenez-FonsecaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Jaume CapdevilaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Ángel Castaño-PascualDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.
Marta BenaventDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain.
Jose Javier Pi BarrioDepartment of Endocrinology, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain.
Alex TeuleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Instituto Catalán de Oncología, Hospital Universitario Duran i Reynalds, Barcelona, Spain.
Vicente AlonsoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain.
Ana CustodioDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario la Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Monica MarazuelaDepartment of Endocrinology, Hospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
Ángel SeguraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Adolfo BeguiristainDepartment of Surgery, Hospital de Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain.
Marta LlanosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain.
Maria Purificacion Martinez Del PradoDepartment of Oncology, Hospital de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain.
Jose Angel Diaz-PerezDepartment of Endocrinology, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel CastellanoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Isabel SevillaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain.
Carlos LopezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Teresa AlonsoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Rocio Garcia-CarboneroDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain rgcarbonero@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are a complex family of tumors of widely variable clinical behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification provided a valuable tool to stratify neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) in three prognostic subgroups based on the proliferation index. However, substantial heterogeneity remains within these subgroups, and simplicity sometimes entails an ambiguous and imprecise prognostic stratification. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of histological differentiation within the WHO 2010 grade (G) 1/G2/G3 categories, and explore additional Ki-67 cutoff values in GEP-NENs. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND

methodsA total of 2,813 patients from the Spanish National Tumor Registry (RGETNE) were analyzed. Cases were classified by histological differentiation as NETs (neuroendocrine tumors [well differentiated]) or NECs (neuroendocrine carcinomas [poorly differentiated]), and by Ki-67 index as G1 (Ki-67 <2%), G2 (Ki-67 3%-20%), or G3 (Ki-67 >20%). Patients were stratified into five cohorts: NET-G1, NET-G2, NET-G3, NEC-G2, and NEC-G3.

resultsFive-year survival was 72%. Age, gender, tumor site, grade, differentiation, and stage were all independent prognostic factors for survival. Further subdivision of the WHO 2010 grading improved prognostic stratification, both within G2 (5-year survival: 81% [Ki-67 3%-5%], 72% [Ki-67 6%-10%], 52% [Ki-67 11%-20%]) and G3 NENs (5-year survival: 35% [Ki-67 21%-50%], 22% [Ki-67 51%-100%]). Five-year survival was significantly greater for NET-G2 versus NEC-G2 (75.5% vs. 58.2%) and NET-G3 versus NEC-G3 (43.7% vs. 25.4%).

conclusionSubstantial clinical heterogeneity is observed within G2 and G3 GEP-NENs. The WHO 2010 classification can be improved by including the additive effect of histological differentiation and the proliferation index. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are tumors of widely variable clinical behavior, roughly stratified by the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification into three subgroups based on proliferation index. Real-world data from 2,813 patients of the Spanish Registry RGETNE demonstrated substantial clinical heterogeneity within grade (G) 2 and G3 neuroendocrine neoplasms. Tumor morphology and further subdivision of grading substantially improves prognostic stratification of these patients and may help individualize therapy. This combined, additive effect shall be considered in future classifications of neuroendocrine tumors and incorporated for stratification purposes in clinical trials.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, NeuroendocrineCell DifferentiationChildFemaleHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsKi-67 AntigenMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsKi-67 AntigenMKI67 protein, humanGastroenteropancreaticHeterogeneityKi‐67Neuroendocrine neoplasmsPrognosisRegistryTumor differentiationWorld Health Organization 2010

Identifiers

PMID29330208
PMCPMC5896708

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.