ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2020
Accuracy of Grading in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms and Effect on Survival Estimates: An Institutional Experience.
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. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and biological heterogeneity of Grade 2 digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: prognostic significance of the 10% Ki-67 index cutoff and implications for treatment strategies. A longitudinal study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Article
- Review
- Use of Novel Open-Source Deep Learning Platform for Quantification of Ki-67 in Neuroendocrine Tumors - Analytical Validation.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Overexpression of ODF1 in Gastrointestinal Tract Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: a Novel Potential Immunohistochemical Biomarker for Well-differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors.Endocrine pathology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate grading of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is crucial for proper assessment of prognosis. Estimation of the proliferative indices, if not performed properly, is largely erroneous due to significant intratumoral heterogeneity. We sought to establish the degree of error in the grading of a cohort of curatively resected pancreatic NENs (PanNENs) and the theoretical impact of that in a larger cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) patients.
methodsA retrospective query of an institutional surgical database was performed from 2000 to 2018 to identify optimally resected PanNENs, which were reviewed by two gastrointestinal pathologists and regraded according to the WHO 2017 classification. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for original and new grading systems, respectively and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of the interested variables, including new grading systems.
resultsA total of 176 cases were identified. After regrading, 17/64 (26.6%) G1 neoplasms were classified as G2 and 12/95 (12.6%) G2 neoplasms were classified as G1, while 1/11 (9.1%) G3 neoplasms were classified as G2. Our expert gastrointestinal pathologists agreed on 97% of reclassified cases by blind review. Application of the G1/G2 misclassification errors on various groups, including PanNENs, in a SEER database of 1385 patients rendered the reported survival differences nonsignificant (1000 repetitions; p = 0.063, 95% confidence interval 0.056-0.070).
conclusionsMischaracterization of grade is common in optimally resected PanNENs but is eliminated with proper training and adherence to guidelines. The discrepancy rates can cast doubt on the generally accepted survival differences between G1 and G2 patients, as surmised by large database analyses.
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.