Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42870503›Full record

SynthesisLiver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver2026

Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Systematic Review and Expert Pathologist Reappraisal Using the WHO 6th Edition Framework.

Marcello Maestri, Ottavia Cicerone, Alessandro Gambella, Federica Grillo, Stefano La Rosa, Silvia Uccella, Alessandro Vanoli

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Systematic Review and Expert Pathologist Reappraisal Using the WHO 6th Edition Framework.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026
    Pooled it
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

7 authors.

Marcello MaestriGeneral Surgery Unit I-Liver Service, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5693-9151
Ottavia CiceroneGeneral Surgery Unit I-Liver Service, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9712-2553
Alessandro GambellaPathology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7826-002X
Federica GrilloPathology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6477-3182
Stefano La RosaPathology Unit, Department of Medicine and Technological Innovation, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1941-2403
Silvia UccellaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5714-7295
Alessandro VanoliDepartment of Molecular Medicine-Pathological Anatomy, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2976-7032

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PHNENs) are exceedingly rare. Published evidence often lacks adequate clinicopathological support for a primary hepatic origin and uses inconsistent historical terminology. Previous reviews have pooled well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs), despite differences in biology, prognosis, and management. We systematically reviewed reported PHNENs using PRISMA-based screening and expert pathology reappraisal within the WHO 6th edition morphology-first framework. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened according to predefined eligibility criteria; eligible articles underwent second-level expert assessment of pathology, including morphology (including NET G3 vs. NEC and MiNEN vs. amphicrine carcinoma), immunohistochemistry (expression of at least two NE markers), proliferation (Ki-67/mitotic activity), as well as clinical/imaging work-up to exclude metastases from extrahepatic primaries. Of the 67 potentially eligible studies submitted to expert pathology-based reappraisal, 28 studies (49.1%) were retained in the final dataset with 57 likely NEN cases (mainly case reports/small case series). Among the 57 cases, most were well-differentiated NETs (78.9%); NECs (8.8%), MiNENs (3.5%), and amphicrine carcinomas (1.8%) were less frequent. Some cases were high-grade NENs that could not be distinguished as well or poorly differentiated (7%). PHNEN literature is constrained by rarity, uncertainty of hepatic origin, and historical misclassification. Future studies and registries should report a minimum diagnostic dataset with standardised terminology according to the WHO 6th edition framework and in-depth clinical/imaging studies.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunohistochemistryWorld Health OrganizationBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID42870503
PMCPMC13662408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.