ArticlePleura and peritoneum2024
Active surveillance for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN).
Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm Presenting as an Appendiceal Mucocele: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Proposed strategy after complete LAMN (low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm) resection by different RENAPE units: need for a new consensus?Pleura and peritoneum · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond the Inflamed Appendix: Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm-Emphasis on Macroscopic Findings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: a case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Due to the scarcity of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN), there is an absence of systematized guidelines concerning its management, especially after incidental finding on an appendiceal specimen. In this study, we evaluate the active surveillance (AS) strategy adopted for a series of patients diagnosed with LAMN on resection specimens who were considered to have a low risk of pseudomyxoma progression. Methods: Thirty patients were included between April 2014 and July 2021, with a female majority and a median follow-up period of 3.1 years. The inclusion criteria were as follows: LAMN diagnosis on appendiceal specimens, confirmed in an expert center, limited extra-appendiceal mucin resected and localized around the appendix, normal biology (CEA, CA199, CA125) and normal abdominopelvic MRI. AS included physical exam (trocar scar), biology and MRI, 6 months postoperatively, then yearly for 10 years. Results: As an initial surgery, 77 % had an appendectomy as their initial intervention, 17 % had a cecectomy, and 6 % had a right colectomy. After follow-up, 87 % of patients showed no sign of disease progression by MRI, while 13 % progressed to PMP. MRI performed in the first postoperative year predicted the disease prognosis in 97 % of patients. Conclusions: The AS strategy, based on MRI, is a valid option after incidental LAMN diagnosis.
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.