ArticleHippokratia
Neuroendocrine neoplasm of the cystic duct: report of two cases and literature review.
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN) of the cystic duct (CD) is an extremely rare entity, with misty clinical manifestation and incidental, in most cases, diagnosis. Due to its rarity, several dilemmas arise concerning the optimal treatment of this type of malignancy. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report two cases of histologically confirmed NENs of the CD from our institution. Furthermore, we present a literature review focusing on the treatment type and likelihood of recurrence. The two patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CCE) due to cholelithiasis and were both diagnosed with well-differentiated Grade 1 (G1) NEN. The first patient did not undergo further treatment as the surgical margins were clear. Regarding the second patient, complementary resection of the CD remnant was performed since the histopathological diagnosis indicated positive surgical margins. Active postoperative surveillance was suggested, and both patients remain disease-free to date. In the literature, we identified 22 previous cases of NENs of CD. Since there are still no standard guidelines, various surgical plans were adopted, varying from simple CCE to hepatic lobectomy and Roux en Y hepaticojejunostomy. Postoperative surveillance is reported for up to four years. Regardless of the implicated treatment plan, no patient was diagnosed with recurrent malignancy and the mortality rate was very low (1/22).
conclusionWe propose that cholecystectomy with ligation of the CD proximal to its junction with the common hepatic duct is an adequate oncological treatment for G1 NENs of the CD. When preoperative or perioperative suspicion for malignancy is made, a frozen section of the CD should be sent for pathological examination to confirm radical resection (R0). Nevertheless, there is a need for further research that could validate our findings. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (3):141-144.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36683907PMC9851141W4317778274What 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.