ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas: Is Enucleation Safe?
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus open non-reconstructive pancreatic surgery in children with benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a two-center preliminary study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Missingness in the National Cancer Database: A Novel Surrogate for Hepatobiliary Cancer Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open enucleation for pediatric solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Caudate Resection and Perihepatic Inflammation: Do We Have All the Tools We Need?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of the pancreas are oncologically low-risk tumors, their resection with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or partial pancreatectomy (PP) carries a significant risk for morbidity. To balance the favorable prognosis with the surgical morbidity of pancreas resection, this study explores the oncologic safety of enucleation (EN). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for resected SPT from January 2004 through December 2020. Perioperative outcomes and survival were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Kaplan-Meier analysis (with log-rank test). Survival analysis was performed to compare patients with and without lymph node (LN) metastases and binary logistic regression for predictors of LN metastasis.
resultsA total of 922 patients met inclusion criteria; 18 patients (2%) underwent EN, 550 (59.6%) underwent PP, and 354 (38.4%) underwent PD. Mean tumor size was 57.6 mm. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for EN compared with PP and PD groups (3.8 versus 6.2 versus 9.4 days, p < 0.001). There was a nonsignificant improvement in unplanned readmission [0% versus 8% versus 10.7% (p = 0.163)], 30-day mortality [0% versus 0.5% versus 0% (p = 0.359)], and 90-day mortality [0% versus 0.5% versus 0% (p = 0.363)] between EN, PP, and PD groups. Survival analyses showed no difference in OS when comparing EN versus PP (p = 0.443), and EN versus PD (p = 0317). Patients with LN metastases (p < 0.001) fared worse, and lymphovascular invasion, higher T category (T3-4) and M1 status were found as predictors for LN metastasis.
conclusionsEN may be considered for select patients leading to favorable outcomes. Because survival was worse in the rare cohort of patients with LN metastases, the predictors for LN metastasis identified here may aid in stratifying patients to EN versus resection.
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.