ReviewCancers2023
Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms: From Clinic to Pathology and Prognosis.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm Presenting as Small Intestine Obstruction Due to Internal Hernia: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm vs. high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm: similarities, differences, and current management challenges.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Clinical Significance of Circulating Tumor Cells in Epithelial Appendiceal Neoplasms with Peritoneal Metastases.Cancers · 2024Article
- Beyond boundaries: Feasibility of curved linear array echoendoscope in appendiceal neoplasm detection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix: a comprehensive review of the literature and case presentation.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms have been classified differently over time causing confusion when comparing results between working groups in this field and establishing a prognosis of the disease. A historical perspective of the different classification systems of these tumors is essential for the understanding of the evolution of concepts and histopathological definitions that have led up to the present moment. We carried out a systematic review of the pathological classifications of appendiceal mucinous tumors and how they have included the new criteria resulting from clinical and pathological research. The latest classifications by PSOGI and AJCC 8th edition Cancer Staging have made a great effort to incorporate the new pathological descriptions and develop prognostic groups. The introduction of these new classification systems has posed the challenge of verifying how they adapt to our casuistry and which one defines best the prognosis of our patients. We reclassified our series of patients treated for mucinous appendiceal tumors with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy following the PSOGI and the AJCC 8th edition criteria and concluded that both classifications correspond well with the OS and DFS of these patients, with some advantage relative to the PSOGI classification due to a better histopathological description of the different groups.
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.