Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34592743›Full record

ArticleNeuroendocrinology2022

Serum Biomarker Status with a Distinctive Pattern in Prognosis of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma.

Jianwei Zhang, Yanshuo Cao, Panpan Zhang, Xiaotian Zhang, Jian Li, Jun Zhou, Xicheng Wang, Zhi Peng, Yu Sun, Jie Li and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroendocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A rare case of pulmonary sequestration with elevated CA19-9 levels.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. BeyondMolecular therapy oncolytics · 2023
    Review
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

12 authors.

Jianwei ZhangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Yanshuo CaoPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Panpan ZhangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Xiaotian ZhangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Jian LiPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Jun ZhouPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Xicheng WangPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Zhi PengPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Yu SunPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Pathology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Beijing, China.
Jie LiPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Lin ShenPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.
Ming LuPeking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing, China), Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEPNEC) is a major research focus, but the application of biomarkers to guide its prognostication and management is unsatisfying. Clinical values of conventional serum biomarkers, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199) warrant scrutiny.

methodsPatients diagnosed with GEPNEC with baseline NSE, CEA, and CA199 levels provided in Peking University Cancer Hospital were retrospectively studied. Relationships between biomarkers and prognosis were investigated by the χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.

resultsA total of 640 GEPNEC patients were enrolled. NSE, CEA, and CA199 were elevated in 59.5%, 28.5%, and 21.3% of the population, respectively. Higher NSE had worse median overall survival (OS) (17.0 months vs. not reached, hazard ratio = 2.77 [2.06, 3.73], p < 0.001), and so did patients with higher CEA and CA199. Multivariable analysis confirmed that NSE and CA199 correlated with OS independently. Baseline NSE level and NSE remission predicted OS and the response of patients with first-line etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) treatment. Furthermore, we combined NSE/CEA/CA199 to segregate GEPNEC into novel subgroups, namely, adenocarcinoma-like NEC (ALN), neuroendocrine-like NEC (NLN), and triple-normal NEC (TNN). The groups shared distinctive clinicopathologic features and prognosis (21.0 months vs. 17.1 months vs. not reached, p < 0.001). The EP regimen remained the priority treatment option in NLN/TNN, while ALN was predisposed to "adenocarcinoma-like chemotherapy."

conclusionsElevation of NSE, CEA, or CA199 was common and independently indicates poor prognosis in GEPNEC patients. Serum biomarker-based subtypes suggest meaningful clinical implications and appropriate therapeutic approaches, illuminating promising ways to characterize the prognosis of GEPNEC.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, NeuroendocrinePancreatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenBiomarkersCarbohydrate antigen 19-9Carcinoembryonic antigenGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomaNeuron-specific enolaseOverall survivalSubtype

Identifiers

PMID34592743
PMCPMC9533446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.