SynthesisBJS open2021
Defining stage in mucinous tumours of the appendix with peritoneal dissemination: the importance of grading terminology: systematic review.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Claudin 18 is not a biomarker for breast mucinous tumor.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Article
- Case Report: Lumbar herniation of a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm mimicking a chronic abscess.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Misdiagnosed appendiceal mucinous neoplasms and primary ovarian mucinous tumors present with different pre- and intraoperative characteristics.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMucinous appendiceal neoplasms with peritoneal dissemination (PD) show a wide spectrum of clinical behaviour. Histological grade has been correlated with prognosis, but no universally accepted histological grading has been established. The aim of this systematic review was to provide historical insight to understand current grading classifications, basic histopathological features of each category, and to define which classification correlates best with prognosis.
methodsMEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that reported survival across different pathological grades in patients with mucinous neoplasm of the appendix with PD treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
resultsThirty-eight studies were included. Ronnett's classification was the most common (9 studies). Classifications proposed by the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) (6 studies) and the seventh or eighth edition of the AJCC (7 studies) are gaining in popularity. Nine studies supported a two-tier, 12 a three-tier, and two a four-tier classification system. Three studies demonstrated that acellular mucin had a better prognosis than low-grade pseudomyxoma peritonei in the PSOGI classification or M1bG1 in the eighth edition of the AJCC classification. Four studies demonstrated that the presence of signet ring cells was associated with a worse outcome than high-grade pseudomyxoma peritonei in the PSOGI classification and M1bG2 in the eighth edition of the AJCC.
conclusionThere is a great need for a common language in describing mucinous neoplasms of the appendix with PD. Evolution in terminology as a result of pathological insight turns the four-tiered PSOGI classification system into a coherent classification option.
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.