ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2019
Adenocarcinoma Ex-Goblet Cell: a Retrospective Experience.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- High-Grade Appendiceal Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma-A Literature Review Starting from a Rare Case.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Extra-Appendiceal Neuroendocrine Expressing Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Cecum-A Case Report and Brief Review of the Literature.Reports (MDPI) · 2024Article
- Goblet cell adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon: An underrecognized diagnostic pitfall.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Appendix: A Systematic Review and Incidence and Survival of 1,225 Cases From an English Cancer Registry.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Appearances Can Be Deceiving: A Case Report of Asymptomatic Appendiceal Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma Presenting as an Ovarian Tumor.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAdenocarcinoma ex-goblet cell carcinoids (AGCCs) are rare appendiceal tumors with mixed neuroendocrine and glandular features. They tend to behave more aggressively than typical carcinoid tumors, affect younger patients, and have a greater predilection for spreading to the peritoneum. Outcomes of AGCC patients treated with chemotherapy, extrapolated from colon cancer regimens, in the adjuvant or metastatic setting have not been explicitly reported. We sought to explore outcomes of AGCC patients with either local disease treated with adjuvant FOLFOX or metastatic disease treated with FOLFOX/FOLFIRI post-cytoreductive debulking (or CRS plus HIPEC in the peritoneal-limited setting).
methodsWe performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of 23 pathologically identified AGCC patients from Vanderbilt University Medical Center treated with chemotherapy in either the adjuvant or metastatic settings. Each patient's tumor was categorized as group B or group C based on the criteria from Tang et al. Median progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS) (in the curative setting) and overall survival (OS) were determined for each patient and specified patient subgroup. RESULTS AND
conclusionAGCC patients who were treated with FOLFOX chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI in the metastatic setting experienced prolonged PFS, DFS, and OS. Five patients with peritoneal-limited disease treated with CRS plus HIPEC have not yet reached median PFS or OS. While small sample size, patient selection, and retrospective nature limit the generalizability of findings from our analysis, the efficacy signals we observed suggest prospective evaluation with chemotherapy and CRS plus HIPEC is warranted in AGCC patients.
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.