ReviewJournal of neuroendocrinology2025
Controversies in NEN: An ENETS position statement on the treatment of patients with Grade 3 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours of the gastro-enteropancreatic tract.
Review in Journal of neuroendocrinology, 2025. 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.
- Lurbinectedin plus irinotecan in pretreated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: results of a phase II expansion cohort.ESMO open · 2026Article
- Molecular Profiling of Digestive Grade 3 Neuroendocrine Tumors Reveals a Shared Molecular Framework with Lower-Grade Tumors, Marked Heterogeneity, and Therapeutic Opportunities.Endocrine pathology · 2026Article
- Review
- Efficacy of surufatinib in advanced Grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors: a real-world, national, multicenter study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Controversies in NEN: An ENETS position statement on the treatment of patients with Grade 3 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours of the gastro-enteropancreatic tract.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Grade 3 neuroendocrine tumours (NET G3) represent approximately 20% of high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms, and the recent identification of this entity has given rise to many unanswered questions relating to clinical management. The prognosis for these patients is worse than for those with Grade 1-2 well-differentiated NET, but better than for those with Grade 3 poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. This consensus statement aims to address some uncertainties and explore unmet needs in the management of patients with NET G3. Firstly, the role of surgery in localised disease will be discussed as well as the dilemma in relation to the use of neo-adjuvant and/or adjuvant treatment in this setting. Treatment of oligometastatic digestive NET G3 will also be examined, including the positioning of surgery and ablative therapy. In the advanced setting, traditionally, chemotherapy in the form of temozolomide/capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil-based therapies, rather than platinum/etoposide, is considered a first-line treatment option, with second-line therapy dependent on what was used first-line. More recently, following the results of the NETTER-2 trial, Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy with
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.