Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31838609›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2020

Trends in the Number of Lymph Nodes Evaluated Among Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors in the United States: A Multi-Institutional and National Database Analysis.

Kota Sahara, Diamantis I Tsilimigras, Rittal Mehta, Amika Moro, Anghela Z Paredes, Alexandra G Lopez-Aguiar, Flavio Rocha, Zaheer Kanji, Sharon Weber, Alexander Fisher and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Kota Sahara *Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Diamantis I Tsilimigras *Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Rittal MehtaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Amika MoroDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Anghela Z ParedesDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Alexandra G Lopez-AguiarDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Flavio RochaDepartment of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Zaheer KanjiDepartment of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sharon WeberDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Alexander FisherDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Ryan FieldsDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, WI, USA.
Bradley A KrasnickDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, WI, USA.
Kamran IdreesDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Paula M SmithDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
George A PoultsidesDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Eleftherios MakrisDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Cliff ChoDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Megan BeemsDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Mary DillhoffDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Shishir K MaithelDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Itaru EndoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Timothy M PawlikDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Tim.Pawlik@osumc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-9870

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of routine lymphadenectomy in the surgical treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) remains poorly defined. The objective of the current study was to investigate trends in the number of lymph nodes (LN) evaluated for pNET treatment at a nationwide level.

methodsPatients undergoing surgery for pNET between 2000 and 2016 were identified in the U.S. Neuroendocrine Tumor Study Group (US-NETSG) database as well as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The number of LNs examined was evaluated over time.

resultsThe median number of evaluated LNs increased roughly fourfold over the study period (US-NETSG, 2000: 3 LNs vs. 2016: 13 LNs; SEER, 2000: 3 LNs vs. 2016: 11 LNs, both p < 0.001). While no difference in 5-year OS and RFS was noted among patients who had 1-3 lymph node metastases (LNM) vs. ≥ 4 LNM between 2000-2007 (OS 73.5% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.12; RFS: 64.9% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.39), patients who underwent resection and LN evaluation during the period 2008-2016 had an incrementally worse survival if the patient had node negative disease, 1-3 LNM and ≥ 4 LNM (OS 86.8% vs. 82.7% vs. 74.9%, p < 0.001; RFS: 86.3% vs. 64.7% vs. 50.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, a more recent year of diagnosis, pancreatic head tumor location, and tumor size > 2 cm were associated with 12 or more LNs evaluated in both US-NETSG and SEER databases.

conclusionThe number of LNs examined nearly quadrupled over the last decade. The increased number of LNs examined suggested a growing adoption of the AJCC staging manual recommendations regarding LN evaluation in the treatment of pNET.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsSEER ProgramSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID31838609

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.