Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35008365›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Rethinking the TNM Classification Regarding Direct Lymph Node Invasion in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Fiona Speichinger, Mihnea P Dragomir, Simon Schallenberg, Florian N Loch, Claudius E Degro, Ann-Kathrin Baukloh, Lisa Hartmann, Ioannis Pozios, Christian Schineis, Georgios Antonios Margonis and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

13 authors.

Fiona SpeichingerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Mihnea P DragomirCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Pathology, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5550-3516
Simon SchallenbergCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Pathology, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Florian N LochCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Claudius E DegroCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Ann-Kathrin BauklohCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Lisa HartmannCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Ioannis PoziosCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Christian SchineisCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9189-6751
Georgios Antonios MargonisDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Blalock 688, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Johannes C LauscherCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0563-8826
Katharina BeyerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7578-280X
Carsten KamphuesCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5406-8540

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mechanisms of lymph node invasion seem to play a prognostic role in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after resection. However, the 8th edition of the TNM classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) does not consider this. The aim of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of different mechanisms of lymph node invasion on PDAC. One hundred and twenty-two patients with resected PDAC were examined. We distinguished three groups: direct (per continuitatem, Nc) from the main tumour, metastasis (Nm) without any contact to the main tumour, and a mixed mechanism (Ncm). Afterwards, the prognostic power of the different groups was analysed concerning overall survival (OS). In total, 20 patients displayed direct lymph node invasion (Nc = 16.4%), 44 were classed as Nm (36.1%), and 21 were classed as Ncm (17.2%). The difference in OS was not statistically significant between N0 (no lymph node metastasis,

Indexed as

direct lymph node invasionpancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaTNM classification

Identifiers

PMID35008365
PMCPMC8750597

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.