Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41982168›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2026

Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumours: Are They at Higher Risk of Anastomotic Leak Than Midgut Adenocarcinomas? A Case-Control Study.

Sara-Jane Horne, Mark Coleman, Jon Bishop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sara-Jane HorneUniversity Hospitals Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6325-3625
Mark ColemanUniversity Hospitals Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0668-3311
Jon BishopUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence of neuroendocrine tumours is increasing; they are now the most prevalent small bowel malignancy.

aimsTo identify whether primary anastomoses following resections of midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are at higher risk of anastomotic leak than primary anastomoses following midgut adenocarcinoma resections. METHODS AND

resultsRetrospective analysis of all cases of midgut NET resections and primary anastomoses at a tertiary university hospital in the UK 2019-2024, comparing these to controls of midgut adenocarcinoma resections and primary anastomoses at the same hospital during the same time period. 35 NET cases were matched with 35 adenocarcinoma controls, with anastomotic leaks in 4 (11.4%) cases and 2 (5.7%) controls. The morbidity rate was slightly higher in the NET cohort, occurring in 17 (49%) cases compared to 15 (43%) in the adenocarcinoma controls. However, the proportion of severe complications in the adenocarcinoma controls was higher. Neither of the cohorts had mortalities within 30 days of surgery. Overall all-cause mortality rates and median survival post-operatively were comparable between the two cohorts.

conclusionNETs may be an independent risk factor for anastomotic leak rates; however, further evidence with larger cohorts of patients is required. Due to the low incidence of midgut NETs and midgut adenocarcinomas, a national collaborative is recommended.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAnastomotic LeakIntestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsAdultAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Factorsanastomotic leakneuroendocrine neoplasianeuroendocrine tumours

Identifiers

PMID41982168
PMCPMC13080340

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.