Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40382522›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025

Characteristics and treatment outcome in a prospective cohort of 639 advanced high-grade digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms (NET G3 and NEC). The NORDIC NEC 2 study.

Halfdan Sorbye, Geir Olav Hjortland, Lene Weber Vestermark, Morten Ladekarl, Johanna Svensson, Anna Sundlöv, Eva Tiensuu Janson, Herish Garresori, Eva Hofsli, Christian Kersten and 10 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Halfdan SorbyeCancer Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. halfdan.sorbye@helse-bergen.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7132-6214
Geir Olav HjortlandDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lene Weber VestermarkDepartment of Oncology, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
Morten LadekarlDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0182-1228
Johanna SvenssonDepartment of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna SundlövDepartment of Oncology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Eva Tiensuu JansonDepartment of Medical Sciences, Section of Endocrine Oncology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Herish GarresoriDepartment of Oncology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Eva HofsliDepartment of Oncology, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Christian KerstenDepartment of Research, Hospital of Southern Norway, Kristiansand, Norway.
Hege ElvebakkenDepartment of Oncology, Ålesund Hospital, Møre og Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-4836
Per PfeifferDepartment of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Siren MorkenCancer Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-8676-772X
Jorg AssmusCentre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Inger Marie Bowitz LotheDepartment of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Elizaveta TabaksblatDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ulrich KniggeDepartment of Surgery C and Endocrinology PE, Rigshospitalet, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne CouvelardDepartment of Pathology, Bichat Hospital, Paris, France.
Aurel PerrenInstitute of Tissue Medicine and Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Seppo W LangerDepartment of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigestive high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (HG-NEN) are rare and classified as neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) or neuroendocrine tumours G3 (NET G3), and differ in clinical and molecular characteristics, response to treatment and prognosis.

methodsProspective multicenter study registering clinical data on patients with digestive HG-NEN. Treatment outcome in patients with advanced disease was compared after centralized pathological re-evaluation.

results427 NEC and 117 NET G3 received palliative chemotherapy. Immediate progression rate was 41% and 24%, progression-free survival (PFS) 3.4 m and 7.4 m, overall survival (OS) 7.4 m and 21.8 m for NEC and NET G3, respectively. Significant factors for OS in NEC were performance status (PS), Ki-67 > 55%, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), age, sex and for PFS colorectal primary and PS. NEC Ki-67 < 55% had similar OS comparing treatment. Significant factors for OS in NET G3 were platinum-based treatment, PS, age and ALP, and for PFS platinum-based treatment.

conclusionsSurvival was shorter than expected in this unique population-based cohort of advanced digestive HG-NEN, likely due to inclusion of elderly and patients with poor PS. Several novel prognostic factors were identified for NEC and NET G3. An initial sub-effective platinum-based treatment for NET G3 could not be compensated by later-line treatment.

Indexed as

Digestive System NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40382522
PMCPMC12322073

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.