Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A common classification framework for neuroendocrine neoplasms: an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) expert consensus proposal

Open access
Rindi, Guido, Klimstra, David S., Abedi-Ardekani, Behnoush, Asa, Sylvia L., Bosman, Frederik T., Brambilla, Elisabeth, Busam, Klaus J., de Krijger, Ronald R., Dietel, Manfred, El-Naggar, Adel K., Fernandez-Cuesta, Lynnette, Klöppel, Günter, McCluggage, W.Glenn, Moch, Holger, Ohgaki, Hiroko, Rakha, Emad A., Reed, Nicholas S., Rous, Brian A., Sasano, Hironobu, Scarpa, Aldo, Scoazec, Jean-Yves, Travis, William D., Tallini, Giovanni, Trouillas, Jacqueline, van Krieken, J.Han, Cree, Ian A.·2018·Modern Pathology
DOI 10.1038/s41379-018-0110-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) differs between organ systems and currently causes considerable confusion. A uniform classification framework for NENs at any anatomical location may reduce inconsistencies and contradictions among the various systems currently in use. The classification suggested here is intended to allow pathologists and clinicians to manage their patients with NENs consistently, while acknowledging organ-specific differences in classification criteria, tumor biology, and prognostic factors. The classification suggested is based on a consensus conference held at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in November 2017 and subsequent discussion with additional experts. The key feature of the new classification is a distinction between differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), also designated carcinoid tumors in some systems, and poorly differentiated NECs, as they both share common expression of neuroendocrine markers. This dichotomous morphological subdivision into NETs and NECs is supported by genetic evidence at specific anatomic sites as well as clinical, epidemiologic, histologic, and prognostic differences. In many organ systems, NETs are graded as G1, G2, or G3 based on mitotic count and/or Ki-67 labeling index, and/or the presence of necrosis; NECs are considered high grade by definition. We believe this conceptual approach can form the basis for the next generation of NEN classifications and will allow more consistent taxonomy to understand how neoplasms from different organ systems inter-relate clinically and genetically.

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 · 10.1038/s41379-018-0110-y

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,163

Metadata

Authors
Rindi, G., Klimstra, D. S., Abedi-Ardekani, B., Asa, S. L., Bosman, F. T., Brambilla, E., Busam, K. J., de Krijger, R. R., Dietel, M., El-Naggar, A. K., Fernandez-Cuesta, L., Klöppel, G., McCluggage, W. G., Moch, H., Ohgaki, H., Rakha, E. A., Reed, N. S., Rous, B. A., Sasano, H., Scarpa, A., Scoazec, J.-Y., Travis, W. D., Tallini, G., Trouillas, J., van Krieken, J. H., & Cree, I. A.
Venue
Modern Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
31
Issue
12
Pages
1770-1786
ISSN
0893-3952 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41379-018-0110-y
OpenAlex
W2888018398
Cited by
1,163
References
74
FWCI
77.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.