Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38955993›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Subgrading of G2 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors as 2A (Ki67 3% to < 10%) Versus 2B (10% to ≤ 20%) Identifies Behaviorally Distinct Subsets in Keeping with the Evolving Management Protocols.

Ozgur Can Eren, Pelin Bagci, Serdar Balci, Nobuyuki Ohike, Burcu Saka, Cenk Sokmensuer, Can Berk Leblebici, Yue Xue, Michelle D Reid, Alyssa M Krasinskas and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Concept of neuroendocrine neoplasms of all organs with a focus on grading, subtyping.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Ozgur Can ErenDepartment of Pathology, Koç University, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9889-2702
Pelin BagciDepartment of Pathology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Serdar BalciDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sisli Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Nobuyuki OhikeDepartment of Pathology, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan.
Burcu SakaDepartment of Pathology, Koç University, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Cenk SokmensuerDepartment of Pathology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Can Berk LeblebiciDepartment of Pathology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Yue XueDepartment of Pathology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Michelle D ReidDepartment of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alyssa M KrasinskasDepartment of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
David KoobyDepartment of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Shishir K MaithelDepartment of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Juan SarmientoDepartment of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jeanette D ChengDepartment of Pathology, Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Orhun Cig TaskinDepartment of Pathology, Koç University, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Yersu KapranDepartment of Pathology, Koç University, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Zeynep Cagla TarcanDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Claudio LuchiniDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology and ARC-Net Research Centre, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Aldo ScarpaDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology and ARC-Net Research Centre, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Olca BasturkDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
N Volkan AdsayDepartment of Pathology, Koç University, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye. vadsay@kuh.ku.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-3701

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrade 1/2 PanNETs are mostly managed similarly, typically without any adjunct treatment with the belief that their overall metastasis rate is low. In oncology literature, Ki67-index of 10% is increasingly being used as the cutoff in stratifying patients to different protocols, although there are no systematic pathology-based studies supporting this approach.

methodsKi67-index was correlated with clinicopathologic parameters in 190 resected PanNETs. A validation cohort (n = 145) was separately analyzed.

resultsIn initial cohort, maximally selected rank statistics method revealed 12% to be the discriminatory cutoff (close to 10% rule of thumb). G2b cases had liver/distant metastasis rate of almost threefold higher than that of G2a and showed significantly higher frequency of all histopathologic signs of aggressiveness (tumor size, perineural/vascular invasion, infiltrative growth pattern, lymph node metastasis). In validation cohort, these figures were as striking. When all cases were analyzed together, compared with G1, the G2b category had nine times higher liver/distant metastasis rate (6.1 vs. 58.5%; p < 0.001) and three times higher lymph node metastasis rate (20.5 vs. 65.1%; p < 0.001).

conclusionsG2b PanNETs act very similar to G3, supporting management protocols that regard them as potential therapy candidates. Concerning local management, metastatic behavior in G2b cases indicate they may not be as amenable for conservative approaches, such as watchful waiting or enucleation. This substaging should be considered into diagnostic guidelines, and clinical trials need to be devised to determine the more appropriate management protocols for G2b (10% to ≤ 20%) group, which shows liver/distant metastasis in more than half of the cases, which at minimum warrants closer follow-up.

Indexed as

Ki-67 AntigenLiver NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorClinical ProtocolsDisease ManagementFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingBiomarkers, TumorKi-67 AntigenMKI67 protein, humanGradeKi-67 proliferative indexMetastasisPancreatic neuroendocrine tumor

Identifiers

PMID38955993
PMCPMC11413052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.