ReviewNeuroendocrinology2025
Are Neuroendocrine Neoplasms No Longer a Rare Cancer?
Review in Neuroendocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epidemiology and Health Impacts of Neuroendocrine Tumours.Neuroendocrinology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are consistently referred to as a "relatively" rare heterogenous group of "tumours" with variability in their disease course and outcomes. However, there is a lack of consensus on (a) the group membership, that is, a lack of consistency in which "subtypes" of NEN are included in the group; (b) whether they should continue to be seen as a "heterogenous group," or as separate entities; and (c) whether the term and current definitions of "rare" accurately reflects the true patient population and healthcare requirement. SUMMARY: This opinion article explores the concept of rare, as applied to NENs: the significance of a rare cancer label and what this means for awareness, healthcare provision and, tangentially, those diagnosed. It briefly explores rare cancer definitions, including incidence thresholds and interpretation of definition as demonstrated in the variability in what subtypes are included in databanks or registries, and it also asks whether the currently utilised rare cancer definitions reflect an accurate representation of the true disease burden and fully inform disease-appropriate healthcare planning and provision. KEY MESSAGES: The current definition of "rare cancer" based on incidence alone fails to reflect the true disease burden of NENs and is therefore inadequate, to fully inform healthcare policy, planning and provision for this patient population. This requires either a revision in definition or an alteration in how and what decision-makers utilise and include in their deliberations when assessing and planning service provision.
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.