ArticleMedicine2020
Survivals of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas: An in-depth analysis by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th tumor-node-metastasis staging manual.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypoattenuation Pattern on Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Predicts Poor Prognosis in Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Translational Potential of a Contrast Agent for FGS Applications in pNETs.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Survivals and Staging Systems of World Health Organization G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinomas: A Consecutive Analysis Based on Previous Study Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- World Health Organization grading classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a comprehensive analysis from a large Chinese institution.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Clinical Features and Long-Term Survival of Metastatic Hepatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Secondary to Gastroenteropancreatic Site: An Analysis by Applying the Grading Classification.Journal of oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging manual stipulated the World Health Organization (WHO) G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (p-NECs) should all be classified by the system for pancreatic exocrine adenocarcinomas, which had ignored the heterogeneity of G3 p-NECs. We focused on demonstrating whether the heterogeneous subgroups of G3 p-NECs would influence the accurate application of AJCC 8th staging systems.G3 p-NECs were divided into well-differentiated and poorly-differentiated subgroups, whose clinical features and overall survival (OS) were compared. Survival analysis by applying 2 new AJCC 8th staging systems to well-differentiated G3 p-NECs were performed to validate whether these subgroup patients should also be staged by the system proposed for all G3 p-NECs.We enrolled 172 patients who were histopathologically diagnosed as G3 p-NECs, including 64 well-differentiated G3 p-NECs and 108 poorly-differentiated ones, whose patient demographics and tumor characteristics present no notably differences (P > .05), except their Ki-67 index and mitotic rate (P = .031, P = .025; respectively). The estimated OS of well-differentiated G3 p-NECs was significantly better than those of poorly-differentiated tumors (P < .001). When applying the new AJCC system for all G3 p-NECs to well-differentiated G3 tumors, 18, 22, 12, and 12 patients were respectively distributed in the new AJCC Stage I, Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV. Using the AJCC 8th staging system for WHO G1/G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) to well-differentiated G3 p-NECs, there were 5, 25, 22, and 12 patients classified from the new AJCC Stage I to Stage IV, respectively. The system for G1/G2 p-NETs could significantly differentiate the survival differences between each new stage of well-differentiated G3 p-NECs (P < .05), while comparisons of survivals between Stage II with Stage III or Stage III with Stage IV by the system for G3 p-NECs were not statistically different (P = .334, P = .073; respectively).G3 p-NECs were heterogeneous with well-differentiated and poorly-differentiated subgroups. Both AJCC 8th staging systems proposed for all G3 p-NECs and G1/G2 p-NETs were practical for well-differentiated G3 p-NECs, while the one originally applied to G1/G2 p-NETs appeared to be superior in performance due to its better prognostic stratification and more accurate predicting ability.
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.