Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40357650›Full record

ArticleBJS open2025

Benefit of splenectomy in distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine tumours: multicentre retrospective study.

Elise Clément, Pietro Addeo, Alain Sauvanet, Célia Turco, Ugo Marchese, Safi Dokmak, Christophe Laurent, Ahmet Ayav, Olivier Turrini, Laurent Sulpice and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

26 authors.

Elise ClémentDepartment of Digestive Surgical Oncology, Liver Transplantation Unit, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Pietro AddeoHepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Pôle des Pathologies Digestives, Hépatiques et de la Transplantation, Hôpital de Hautepierre-Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0046-7973
Alain SauvanetDepartment of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, University of Paris, Clichy, France.
Célia TurcoDepartment of Digestive Surgical Oncology, Liver Transplantation Unit, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Ugo MarcheseDepartment of Digestive, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cochin Teaching Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Safi DokmakDepartment of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, University of Paris, Clichy, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7811-2155
Christophe LaurentDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit. Centre Magellan-CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Ahmet AyavDepartment of HPB Surgery, Nancy University Hospital, Nancy, France.
Olivier TurriniDepartment of Oncological Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Laurent SulpiceDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital, Rennes 1 University, Rennes, France.
Régis SoucheDepartment of Surgery, Hopital Saint Eloi, Montpellier, France.
Julie PerinelDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.
David J BirnbaumDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Nord, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9026-3044
Olivier FacyDepartment of Digestive and Surgical Oncology, University Hospital, Dijon, France.
Johan GagnièreDepartment of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery-Liver transplantation, University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Lilian SchwarzDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Rouen University Hospital and Université de Rouen Normandie, Rouen, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6726-8755
Guillaume PiessenDepartment of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, CHU Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8243-8310
Nicolas RegenetDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nantes Hospital, Nantes, France.
Antonio IannelliDigestive Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Nice, Nice, France.
Jean Marc RegimbeauDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Medical Centre and Jules Verne University of Picardie, Amiens, France.
Xavier LenneMedical Information Department, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Bruno HeydDepartment of Digestive Surgical Oncology, Liver Transplantation Unit, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Sébastien GaujouxDepartment of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.
Mehdi El AmraniDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Alexandre DoussotDepartment of Digestive Surgical Oncology, Liver Transplantation Unit, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0543-1793
Collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistal pancreatectomy is frequently indicated for left-sided pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET). When combined lymphadenectomy is warranted, distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS) is generally advocated to optimize lymph node dissection. The spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) may represent an alternative approach. This study aimed to evaluate postoperative and oncological results of distal pancreatectomy with and without splenectomy for pancreatic NET.

methodsThis multicentre retrospective study included all distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic NET performed between 2014 and 2018. Patients with functional NET or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 were excluded. Indications and results were compared between DPS, distal pancreatectomy according to Kimura (K-SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy according to Warshaw (W-SPDP), before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

resultsAmong 251 patients included (108 DPS (43%), 73 K-SPDP (29%), and 70 W-SPDP (28%)), there was no difference in terms of patients' characteristics, surgical approach, and conversion. Tumour size (P = 0.005), grade (P < 0.001) and the number of nodes analysed (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing K-SPDP as compared to W-SPDP or DPS. Apart from a difference in readmission rate (P = 0.002), there was no difference in terms of mortality rate or severe morbidity rate between the three techniques. After PSM comparing DPS (n = 70) and W-SPDP (n = 70), there was no difference in morbidity and mortality rates. R0 resection rate (91% versus 97%; P = 0.165), the number of nodes analysed (8 versus 7; P = 0.495), and median overall survival (P = 0.493) were not different.

conclusionIn cases of distal pancreatectomy for NET, splenectomy did not seem to improve lymph node dissection or survival. When lymph node dissection associated with distal pancreatectomy is justified, the benefit of splenectomy appears questionable.

Indexed as

Neuroendocrine TumorsPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsSplenectomyAdultAgedFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40357650
PMCPMC12070039

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.