Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32291735›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2020

Evaluation of circulating transcript analysis (NETest) in small intestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms after surgical resection.

Faidon-Marios Laskaratos, Man Liu, Anna Malczewska, Olagunju Ogunbiyi, Jennifer Watkins, Tu Vinh Luong, Dalvinder Mandair, Martyn Caplin, Christos Toumpanakis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Faidon-Marios Laskaratos *Centre for Gastroenterology, Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. flaskaratos@gmail.com.
Man Liu *Centre for Gastroenterology, Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Anna MalczewskaDepartment of Endocrinology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Olagunju OgunbiyiDepartment of Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Jennifer WatkinsHistopathology Department, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Tu Vinh LuongHistopathology Department, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Dalvinder MandairCentre for Gastroenterology, Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Martyn CaplinCentre for Gastroenterology, Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Christos ToumpanakisCentre for Gastroenterology, Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, ENETS Centre of Excellence, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
University College London · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBMedical University of Silesia · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurgical resection is the only effective curative strategy for small intestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (SINENs). Nevertheless, the evaluation of residual disease and prediction of disease recurrence/progression remains a problematic issue.

methodsWe evaluated 13 SINENs that underwent surgical resection of the primary tumour and/or mesenteric mass. Patients were divided in three groups: (a) Group 1: SINENs that underwent resection with curative intent, (b) Group 2: SINENs treated with resection in the setting of metastatic disease, which remained stable and (c) Group 3: SINENs treated with resection in the setting of metastatic disease, with evidence of any progression at follow-up. NETest and chromogranin A were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively during a 22-month median follow-up period and compared with imaging studies. NETest score <20% was determined as normal, 20-40% low, 41-79% intermediate and ≥80% high score.

resultsNETest score was raised in all (100%) SINENs pre-operatively. Surgery with curative intent resulted in NETest score reduction from 78.25 ± 15.32 to 25.25 ± 1.75 (p < 0.05). Low NETest scores post-operatively were evident in all cases without clinical evidence of residual disease (Group 1). However, the low disease activity score suggested the presence of microscopic residual disease. In three cases (75%) with stable disease (Group 2) the NETest score was low consistent with indolent disease. In the progressive disease group (Group 3), a high NETest score was present in three cases (60%) and an intermediate NETest score in the remainder (40%).

conclusionsBlood NETest scores accurately identified SINENs and were significantly decreased by curative surgery. Monitoring NETest post-operatively may facilitate management by identifying the presence of residual/progressive disease.

Indexed as

Intestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsBiomarkers, TumorChromogranin AHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorChromogranin ANETestNeuroendocrine tumourSmall bowelSurgery

Identifiers

PMID32291735
PMCPMC7392928
OpenAlexW3016217018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.