ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Comparative prognosis and risk assessment in gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms versus adenocarcinomas.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gallbladder neuroendocrine neoplasms (GB-NENs) are a rare malignant disease, with most cases diagnosed at advanced stages, often resulting in poor prognosis. However, studies regarding the prognosis of this condition and its comparison with gallbladder adenocarcinomas (GB-ADCs) have yet to yield convincing conclusions. Methods: We extracted cases of GB-NENs and GB-ADCs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database in the United States. Firstly, we corrected differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups using propensity score matching (PSM). Subsequently, we visualized and compared the survival outcomes of the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Next, we employed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and Cox regression to identify prognostic factors for GB-NENs and constructed two nomograms for predicting prognosis. These nomograms were validated with an internal validation dataset from the SEER database and an external validation dataset from a hospital. Finally, we categorized patients into high-risk and low-risk groups based on their overall survival (OS) scores. Results: A total of 7,105 patients were enrolled in the study, comprising 287 GB-NENs patients and, 6,818 GB-ADCs patients. There were substantial differences in clinical characteristics between patients, and GB-NENs exhibited a significantly better prognosis. Even after balancing these differences using PSM, the superior prognosis of GB-NENs remained evident. Independent prognostic factors selected through LASSO and Cox regression were age, histology type, first primary malignancy, tumor size, and surgery. Two nomograms for prognosis were developed based on these factors, and their performance was verified from three perspectives: discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability using training, internal validation, and external validation datasets, all of which exhibited excellent validation results. Using a cutoff value of 166.5 for the OS nomogram score, patient mortality risk can be identified effectively. Conclusion: Patients with GB-NENs have a better overall prognosis compared to those with GB-ADCs. Nomograms for GB-NENs prognosis have been effectively established and validated, making them a valuable tool for assessing the risk of mortality in clinical practice.
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.