Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 405

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Open access
Pape, Ulrich‐Frank, Jann, Henning, Müller‐Nordhorn, Jacqueline, Bockelbrink, Angelina, Berndt, Uta, Willich, Stefan N., Koch, Martin, Röcken, Christoph, Rindi, Guido, Wiedenmann, Bertram·2008·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND.: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) system comprise a rare but challenging group of malignant neoplasms and occur at virtually any site of the GEP system. In 2006, a new TNM classification system was proposed for the staging and grading of upper GEP NETs. METHODS.: The prognostic relevance of the TNM classification system was analyzed retrospectively in 202 patients from a referral center with histologically proven foregut NET. Patients were classified according to previous classification systems and the TNM classification. Survival data were acquired and statistical analyses were performed by using log‐rank and Cox regression testing. RESULTS.: Primary tumors were gastric (n = 48), duodenal (n = 23), and pancreatic (n = 131). During the observation period, 21% of patients died. The overall 5‐ and 10‐year survival rates were 75% and 64%, respectively. Previous classification systems discriminated between low‐grade and high‐grade malignant NETs but did not allow further prognostic differentiation. In contrast, the proposed TNM classification was able to differentiate significantly between different tumor stages (stages I‐III vs stage IV; P < .01) and cellular proliferation rates according to Ki‐67 labeling (grade 1 vs grade 2, P = .04; grade 1 vs grade 3 and grade 2 vs grade 3, P < .01). Cox regression analysis confirmed an increased risk of reduced survival for patients with stage III or IV NET and grade 2 or 3 NET. CONCLUSIONS.: The current results demonstrated the prognostic relevance of the newly proposed TNM classification system for foregut NETs with statistical significance for the subgroups of both the staging classification and the grading system. Thus, the new classification system provides a valid and powerful tool for prognostic stratification of GEP NETs in clinical practice and research. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.23549

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 405

Metadata

Authors
Pape, U., Jann, H., Müller‐Nordhorn, J., Bockelbrink, A., Berndt, U., Willich, S. N., Koch, M., Röcken, C., Rindi, G., & Wiedenmann, B.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07-08
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
256-265
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2066768964
Cited by
405
References
0
FWCI
18.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.23549
The paper
Pape, U., Jann, H., Müller‐Nordhorn, J., Bockelbrink, A., Berndt, U., Willich, S. N., Koch, M., Röcken, C., Rindi, G., & Wiedenmann, B. (2008). Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23549

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.