ArticleEndocrine2021
Is local excision sufficient in selected grade 1 or 2 type III gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms?
Article in Endocrine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Type 2 and type 3 gastric neuroendocrine tumors have high risk of lymph node metastasis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Pooled it
- [Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: update on endoscopic and surgical management].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Controversies in NEN: An ENETS position statement on the endoscopic management of localised gastric, duodenal and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2025Review
- Gastric neuroendocrine tumors: A review of pathology and updated roadmap to surgical management.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Rare epithelial gastric cancers: a review of the current treatment knowledge.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
- Novel classification of gastric polyps: The good, the bad and the ugly.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- Review
- Type 3 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: the rising promise of conservative endoscopic management.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Advances in Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Review
- Therapeutic Challenges for Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Take It or Leave It?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors-Current Status and Advances in Diagnostic Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors (g-NETs): A Systematic Review of the Management and Outcomes of Type 3 g-NETs.Cancers · 2023Review
- Current status of the role of endoscopy in evaluation and management of gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: a primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- State of the Art in Endoscopic Therapy for the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Current updates and future directions in diagnosis and management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
- How to Select Patients Affected by Neuroendocrine Neoplasms for Surgery.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- New Developments in Gastric Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeType III gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) have historically been regarded as aggressive tumours, hence current guidelines advocate radical surgery with lymph node dissection. Data on the roles of endoscopic or less extensive surgical resections are more limited. The aim of our study is to evaluate the clinicopathological features and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic or limited surgical resection for localised grade 1 or 2 type III g-NENs when compared to radical surgery.
methodsRetrospective analysis of all patients diagnosed with a localised grade 1 or 2 type III g-NENs across six tertiary NEN centers between 2006 and 2019.
resultsForty-five patients were diagnosed with a potentially resectable grade 1 or 2 type III g-NEN of whom 36 underwent either endoscopic or surgical resection. No statistically significant differences were found between the three resection groups in terms of patient age, tumour location, grade or size. Only tumour size was found to be significantly associated with poor clinical outcome (p = 0.012) and ROC curve analysis identified tumour size >10 mm as a negative predictor (AUC:0.8030, p = 0.0021). Tumours >10 mm were also more likely to be associated with lymph node metastases on imaging and histology (p = 0.039 and p = 0.026 respectively).
conclusionsLocalised grade 1 or 2 type III g-NENs had a good prognosis in this series. Tumour size >10 mm was the most significant prognostic factor affecting patient outcome. Endoscopic resection or limited surgical resection is feasible and safe in small type III g-NENs which demonstrate favourable grade 1/2, well differentiated histology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34120313What 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.