Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962649›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

World Health Organization grading classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a comprehensive analysis from a large Chinese institution.

Min Yang, Lin Zeng, Neng-Wen Ke, Chun-Lu Tan, Bo-le Tian, Xu-Bao Liu, Bo Xiang, Yi Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A case-based evidence review.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prognostic value of CT-based radiomics in grade 1-2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. A Machine Learning Approach Using [Molecular imaging and biology · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Min YangDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Lin ZengPresident & Dean's Office, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Neng-Wen KeDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the People's Republic of China, No.37, Guoxue Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Chun-Lu TanDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the People's Republic of China, No.37, Guoxue Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Bo-le TianDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the People's Republic of China, No.37, Guoxue Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Xu-Bao LiuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the People's Republic of China, No.37, Guoxue Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Bo XiangDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China.
Yi ZhangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the People's Republic of China, No.37, Guoxue Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, The People's Republic of China. zhangyide520@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3641-0629

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (p-NENs) are a group of highly heterogeneous tumors with distinct clinicopathological features and long-term prognosis. In 2017, in order to better stratify patients into prognostic groups and predicting their outcomes, World Health Organization (WHO) officially updated its grading system for p-NENs which distinguished these neoplasms among Grading 1 (G1) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs), G2 p-NETs, G3 p-NETs and G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (p-NECs). However, this new grading classification for p-NENs has not yet been rigorously validated.

methodsData of patients who were surgically treated and histopathologically diagnosed as p-NENs at West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2002 to December 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed according the novel WHO 2017 grading classification.

resultsWe eventually enrolled 480 eligible patients with p-NENs in our present study, in which 150 patients with WHO 2017 G1 p-NETs, 158 with G2 p-NETs, 64 with G3 p-NETs and 108 with G3 p-NECs were identified. The estimated 5-year overall survival for patients with G1 p-NETs, G2 p-NETs, G3 p-NETs and G3 p-NECs was 75.8, 58.4, 35.1 and 11.1%, with a median survival time of 85.3mons, 67.4mons, 51.3mons and 26.8mons, respectively. Patients with G2 p-NETs present notably worse survival than those with G1 p-NETs (P = 0.03). Survival of G3 p-NETs were significantly worse than that of G1 p-NETs or G2 p-NETs (P < 0.001, P = 0.023, respectively), as well as that when comparing G3 p-NECs with G1 p-NETs or G2 p-NETs (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Patients with G3 p-NECs showed statistically shorter survival than those with G3 p-NETs (P < 0.001). Both WHO 2017 and 2010 grading criteria could be independent predictor for the OS of p-NENs (P = 0.016, P = 0.022; respectively). The 95% confidence intervals of WHO 2017 grading classification (0.983-9.454) was slightly smaller than that of WHO 2010 criteria (0.201-13.374), indicating a relatively more accurate predicting ability for the prognosis of p-NENs.

conclusionThe WHO 2017 grading classification for p-NENs could successfully allocate patients into four groups with distinct clinical features and significant survival differences, which might be superior to the WHO 2010 criteria for its better prognostic stratification and more accurate predicting ability.

Indexed as

ChinaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsWorld Health OrganizationAJCCGradingPANCREATIC neuroendocrine neoplasmsPrognosisStagingWHO

Identifiers

PMID32962649
PMCPMC7510074

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.