↓ Skip to main content

Intrinsic Contact Between T and N Classifications in Resected Well–Moderately Differentiated Locoregional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Intrinsic Contact Between T and N Classifications in Resected Well–Moderately Differentiated Locoregional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
DOI 10.1245/s10434-017-6289-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin-Zhi Xu, Wen-Quan Wang, Shi-Rong Zhang, Hua-Xiang Xu, Chun-Tao Wu, Zi-Hao Qi, He-Li Gao, Quan-Xing Ni, Liang Liu, Xian-Jun Yu

Abstract

The role of N classification is controversial in several prognostication systems proposed for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs). The widely accepted modified European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (mENETS) system suggests this contradiction may be related to T classification. Data were collected retrospectively from 981 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (1973-2012; cohort 1) and 140 patients from the Pancreatic Cancer Institute of Fudan University (2006-2016; cohort 2). All patients had resected well- to moderately differentiated locoregional pNENs, whereby the mENETS system was adopted. Factors related to N1 classification and the association between N and T classifications were analyzed, and N classification prognosis based on T classification was assessed. In cohorts 1 and 2, tumor size (2-4 cm: p < 0.001 and p = 0.037, respectively; > 4 cm: p < 0.001 and p = 0.012, respectively) and tumors extending beyond the pancreas (p < 0.001 and p = 0.016, respectively), which are factors for T classification, affected N1 classification. For tumors limited to the pancreas, the N1 classification was associated with tumor size (p < 0.001 and p = 0.046, respectively) and predicted poor disease-specific survival (DSS), while for tumors extending beyond the pancreas, the N1 classification did not affect patient outcomes. Findings obtained with data from the SEER database were reproducible with our institutional data. N classification is associated with T classification, limiting the value of N1 classification for the pNENs tumor-node-metastasis system. A new risk model is necessary to predict patient outcomes and guide clinical practice for the prognosis of pNENs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,961,684
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,306
of 6,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,597
of 439,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#68
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.