ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2020
A single-center experience with pancreatic cystic neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: From Basic Knowledge to Recent Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Rare pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A pictorial review.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Portuguese Pancreatic Club Perspective on the Surveillance Strategy for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours: When and How to Do It?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Cystic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor: A Diagnostic Dilemma.Journal of laboratory physicians · 2023Article
- Parenchymal Sparing Resection: Options in Duodenal and Pancreatic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) are rare, with a significant malignant potential. This study aimed to determine outcomes of patients with resected PNETs according to the cystic component and confirm the accuracy of preoperative staging.
methodsFrom 1997 to 2016, 106 patients underwent resection of PNETs, including 73 purely solid (S-PNETs, 69%), 21 mixed (M-PNETs, 20%), and 12 purely cystic lesions (C-PNETs, 11%). To ensure consistent comparisons of overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival outcomes between the 3 groups, the patients were matched according to the World Health Organization (WHO) grade and tumor height.
resultsOverall, the rate of correlation between the preoperative and pathological diagnoses was low in the C-PNET group (33%, P = 0.03). None of the 24 patients (23%) with metastatic disease at the time of surgery were in the C-PNET group. Furthermore, significantly more parenchyma-sparing resections (P = 0.039) and fewer enlarged resections (P = 0.019) were achieved in the C-PNET group. C-PNET group had a significantly lower node invasion rate than the S-PNET and M-PNET groups (8% vs. 41% and 24%, P = 0.004). Although median OS was comparable in all 3 groups before (P = 0.3) and after (P = 0.18) matching, higher median DFS was observed in the C-PNET group than in the other groups after matching (P = 0.038).
conclusionC-PNET was associated with a better prognosis than PNET with a solid component. The results support a wait-and-see policy in cases wherein a reliable preoperative diagnosis remains challenging.
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.