Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30097704›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019

Implementation of Current ENETS Guidelines for Surgery of Small (≤2 cm) Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in the German Surgical Community: An Analysis of the Prospective DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas Registry.

Ioannis Mintziras, Tobias Keck, Jens Werner, Stefan Fichtner-Feigl, Uwe Wittel, Norbert Senninger, Thorsten Vowinkel, Jörg Köninger, Matthias Anthuber, Bernd Geißler and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors.

Ioannis MintzirasDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany. ioannis.mintziras@uk-gm.de.
Tobias KeckClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Jens WernerDepartment of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Stefan Fichtner-FeiglDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Clinic Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Uwe WittelDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Clinic Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Norbert SenningerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Clinic Münster, Münster, Germany.
Thorsten VowinkelDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Clinic Münster, Münster, Germany.
Jörg KöningerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Katharinenhospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Matthias AnthuberDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Bernd GeißlerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Detlef Klaus BartschDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
StuDoQ|Pancreas study group of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundENETS guidelines recommend parenchyma-sparing procedures without formal lymphadenectomy, ideally with a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for sporadic small pNENs (≤2 cm). Non-functioning (NF) small pNENs can also be observed. The aim of the study was to evaluate how these recommendations are implemented in the German surgical community.

methodsData from the prospective StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery were analyzed regarding patient's demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, histology and perioperative outcomes.

resultsEighty-four (29.2%) of 287 patients had sporadic pNENs ≤2 cm. Forty-three (51.2%) patients were male, and the mean age at diagnosis was 58.8 ± 15.6 years. Twenty-five (29.8%) pNENs were located in the pancreatic head. The diagnosis pNEN was preoperatively established in 53 (65%) of 84 patients. Sixty-two (73.8%) patients had formal pancreatic resections, including partial pancreaticoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy (21.4%). Only 22 (26.2%) patients underwent parenchyma-sparing resections and 23 (27.4%) patients had minimally invasive procedures. A lymphadenectomy was performed in 63 (75.4%) patients, and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 6 (7.2%) patients. Eighty-two (97.7%) patients had an R0 resection. Sixty (72%) tumors were classified G1, 24 (28%) tumors G2. Twenty-seven (32.2%) of 84 patients had postoperative relevant Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. Thirty- and 90-day mortalities were 2.4% and 3.6%.

conclusionsENETS guidelines for surgery of small pNENs are yet not well accepted in the German surgical community, since the rate of formal resections with standard lymphadenectomy is high and the minimally invasive approach is underused. The attitude to operate small NF tumors seems to be rather aggressive.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicFemaleGermanyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsOperative TimePancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomy

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.