Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35740332›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

From SGAP-Model to SGAP-Score: A Simplified Predictive Tool for Post-Surgical Recurrence of Pheochromocytoma.

Mirko Parasiliti-Caprino, Fabio Bioletto, Chiara Lopez, Martina Bollati, Francesca Maletta, Marina Caputo, Valentina Gasco, Antonio La Grotta, Paolo Limone, Giorgio Borretta and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The evolving roles of pathologists in paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Mirko Parasiliti-CaprinoEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6930-7073
Fabio BiolettoEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7550-7023
Chiara LopezEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Martina BollatiEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Francesca MalettaDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Marina CaputoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Piedmont, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Valentina GascoEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Antonio La GrottaEndocrinology and Hypertension, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, 14100 Asti, Italy.
Paolo LimoneEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, A.O. Ordine Mauriziano, 10128 Turin, Italy.
Giorgio BorrettaEndocrinology and Metabolism, Santa Croce and Carle Hospital, 12100 Cuneo, Italy.
Marco VolanteDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Mauro PapottiDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Anna PiaInternal Medicine, Department of Biological and Clinical Sciences, University of Turin, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Massimo TerzoloInternal Medicine, Department of Biological and Clinical Sciences, University of Turin, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4171-2851
Mario MorinoSurgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Barbara PasiniMedical Genetics, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4373-1212
Franco VeglioInternal Medicine and Hypertension Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Ezio GhigoEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Emanuela ArvatOncological Endocrinology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Mauro MaccarioEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
University of Turin · ITPiedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention · ITA. O. Ordine Mauriziano di Torino · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale di Asti · ITAzienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S.Croce e Carle Cuneo · ITOspedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A reliable prediction of the recurrence risk of pheochromocytoma after radical surgery would be a key element for the tailoring/personalization of post-surgical follow-up. Recently, our group developed a multivariable continuous model that quantifies this risk based on genetic, histopathological, and clinical data. The aim of the present study was to simplify this tool to a discrete score for easier clinical use. Data from our previous study were retrieved, which encompassed 177 radically operated pheochromocytoma patients; supervised regression and machine-learning techniques were used for score development. After Cox regression, the variables independently associated with recurrence were tumor size, positive genetic testing, age, and PASS. In order to derive a simpler scoring system, continuous variables were dichotomized, using > 50 mm for tumor size, ≤ 35 years for age, and ≥ 3 for PASS as cut-points. A novel prognostic score was created on an 8-point scale by assigning 1 point for tumor size > 50 mm, 3 points for positive genetic testing, 1 point for age ≤ 35 years, and 3 points for PASS ≥ 3; its predictive performance, as assessed using Somers’ D, was equal to 0.577 and was significantly higher than the performance of any of the four dichotomized predictors alone. In conclusion, this simple scoring system may be of value as an easy-to-use tool to stratify recurrence risk and tailor post-surgical follow-up in radically operated pheochromocytoma patients.

Indexed as

chromaffin systemmachine learningpheochromocytomapredictive scorerecurrence prediction

Identifiers

PMID35740332
PMCPMC9219670
OpenAlexW4281650567

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.