ArticleNeoplasia (New York, N.Y.)2024
Distinction of papillary and adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma: Clinical features, surgical nuances and hypothalamic outcomes.
Article in Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.), 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.
- Pediatric endocrine disorders: a review of intracranial findings and appropriate imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a predictive model for hypothalamic obesity following craniopharyngioma resection.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of transcranial craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngioma: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of BRAF-MEK inhibitors in treatment of Chinese patients with papillary craniopharyngioma: A retrospective cohort study.Molecular therapy. Oncology · 2025Article
- Editorial: Advances and challenges in adult-onset craniopharyngioma.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding the differences of suprasellar papillary and adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas (PCPs/ACPs) is pivotal for target therapy, surgical strategy or postoperative management. Here, the clinical features, surgical nuances and postoperative hypothalamic outcomes of PCPs were systematically recapitulated.
methods24 PCPs and 52 ACPs underwent initial surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data, quantified third ventricle (3rd V) occupation and optic chiasm distortion were compared, as well as intra-operative findings, operating notes and prognosis. Moreover, analysis of tumor/3rd V relationship and hypothalamic outcomes were also performed.
resultsTumors were more likely to occupies the 3rd V cavity in PCPs. Chiasm distortion of "compressed forward" was the most common pattern (45.8 %) in PCPs, whereas "stretched forward" pattern accounted the highest (42.5 %) in ACPs. Besides, round-shaped with less calcification, duct-like recess, solid consistency, rare subdiaphragmatic invasion, visible lower stalk and improved postoperative visual outcome were more frequently observed in PCPs. The basal membranes of the tumor epithelium and the reactive gliosis were separated by a layer of collagen fibers in most PCPs, which differs from ACPs in the morphological examination of tumor/3rd V floor interface. In daytime sleepiness and memory difficulty, the PCPs showed significantly better outcomes than the ACPs groups, and PCPs suffered less postoperative weight gain (p < 0.05) than ACPs among adult-onset cases.
conclusionPCPs are different from ACPs regards the clinical features, operative techniques and outcomes. If necessary, PCPs are suggested more amenable to total removal since its less invasiveness to the 3rd V floor and better hypothalamic outcomes.
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.