ArticleScientific reports2025
A single center retrospective analysis of feasibility of diagnostic endoscopic resection for grade 1 or 2 gastric neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progression after endoscopic treatment for type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors: A single-center retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection with deliberate muscularis propria exposure for curative resection of a large type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumor: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, endoscopic resection is recommended for gastric neuroendocrine tumors (G-NETs) < 10 mm. However, a larger G-NETs can also be resected endoscopically. Here, we evaluated the feasibility of diagnostic endoscopic resection of G-NETs. We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients, diagnosed with grade 1 or 2 G-NETs at a single tertiary referral center, between January 2009 and December 2023. Outcomes analyzed included histopathology, complete resection, and metastasis rates. The mean follow-up period was 38.9 ± 38.4 months; mean size of G-NETs was 4.9 ± 3.4 mm, and the most size of G-NETs were < 10 mm (87.1%). The maximal NET diameter was 16 mm. Most NETs were grade 1 (type 1: 90.9%; type 3: 85.0%). None of the enrolled patients showed evidence of lymph node metastasis or local recurrence. Even in R1 resection (19.4%) showed no metastasis during follow-up without additional surgery. Recurrent or multiple G-NETs were observed only in patients with type 1 NETs (27.2%, 3/11). Modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) showed a 100% complete resection rate. After resection, grade 1 or 2 G-NETs had no lymph nodes or distant metastases during the follow-up period. This study suggests that G-NETs smaller than 16 mm can be considered for diagnostic endoscopic resection and this resection may be potentially definitive treatment.
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.