4.7 Article

A meta-analysis of Prognostic factor of Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-24072-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672449]
  2. Innovation Capability Development Project of Jiangsu Province [BM2015004]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD) [JX10231801]
  4. Jiangsu Key Medical Discipline (General Surgery) [ZDXKA2016005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) are a group of clinically rare and heterogeneous diseases of the pancreas. However, the prognostic factors for this disease in patients still remain controversial. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the predictive roles of those prognostic factors for pNENs. All related articles published until Sep 17, 2017 were identified via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid and the Cochrane Library. Studies that examined the prognostic factors of pNENs were enrolled. 17 articles (2822 patients) were finally included in this study. The pooled data suggested that patients with positive surgical resection margin and lymph node, advanced G stage and TMN stage, organ metastasis, vascular invasion and the necrosis of specimens had a decreased overall survival for pNENs. Similarly, patients with functional tumors might have a poor prognosis. However, age, gender, surgical type and size of tumor could not be regarded as prognostic factors for pNENs. Our analytic data demonstrated that surgical resection margin, G stage, TMN stage, lymph node, metastasis, vascular invasion and the necrosis could be prognostic factors for pNENs. Our study may assist doctors to screen patients with different prognosis more efficiently during follow-up and select appropriate treatment measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available