The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Survival Analysis of 200 Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors With Clarification of Criteria for Atypical Carcinoid and Its Separation From Typical Carcinoid
Abstract
Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung embrace a spectrum from low-grade typical carcinoid (TC), intermediate-grade atypical carcinoid (AC), and high-grade categories of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and small cell carcinoma (SCLC). We studied 200 neuroendocrine lung tumors to critically evaluate the Arrigoni histologic criteria for AC using statistical analysis to delimit more rigorously an intermediate survival for AC between TC and the high-grade tumors of LCNEC and SCLC. Histologic features that might predict prognosis were used for Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards survival analysis, and an optimal mitotic range for AC was calculated. The optimal mitotic range for AC was 2 to 10 mitoses per 2 mm2 of viable tumor (10 high-power fields). Based on this finding, we collapsed mitoses into three categories (< 2; 2-10; > or = 11) and performed Cox multivariate analysis for all 200 neuroendocrine tumors. Mitotic counts were the only independent predictor of prognosis. Based on this analysis, we propose that AC be defined as a tumor with neuroendocrine morphology, mitotic counts between 2-10 per 2 mm2 of viable tumor (10 high-power fields), or coagulative necrosis. Using these criteria, the 200 neuroendocrine tumors were classified as 51 TC, 62 AC, 37 LCNEC, and 50 SCLC. The 5- and 10-year survival was 87% and 87% for TC, 56% and 35% for AC, 27% and 9% for LCNEC, and 9% and 5% for SCLC, respectively. After stratification for stage, survival for AC was significantly worse than for TC (p < 0.001); for LCNEC and SCLC it was significantly worse than for AC; but the survival for LCNEC was no different than that for SCLC.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
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., et al. (2018) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-018-0110-y · Cited by 1,163
Self-citationThe diagnosis and medical management of advanced neuroendocrine tumors.
Kaltsas, G. A., Besser, G. M., & Grossman, A. B. (2004) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2003-0014 · Cited by 674
Klimstra, D. S., Modlin, I. R., Adsay, N. V., Chetty, R., Deshpande, V., Gönen, M., Jensen, R. T., Kidd, M., Kulke, M. H., Lloyd, R. V., et al. (2010) · American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e3181ce1447 · Cited by 351
Placental pathology in malaria: A histological, immunohistochemical, and quantitative study
Ismail, M. R., Ordi, J., Menendez, C., Ventura, P. J., Aponte, J. J., Kahigwa, E., Hirt, R., Cardesa, A., & Alonso, P. L. (2000) · Human Pathology · doi:10.1016/s0046-8177(00)80203-8 · Cited by 328
Rossi, G., Cavazza, A., Marchioni, A., Longo, L., Migaldi, M., Sartori, G., Bigiani, N., Schirosi, L., Casali, C., Morandi, U., et al. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.02.8233 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Travis, W. D., Rush, W., Flieder, D. B., Falk, R., Fleming, M. V., Gal, A. A., & Koss, M. N.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 934-944
- ISSN
- 0147-5185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025095579
- Cited by
- 807
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Survival Analysis of 200 Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors With Clarification of Criteria for Atypical Carcinoid and Its Separation From Typical Carcinoid. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000478-199808000-00003
- The paper
- Travis, W. D., Rush, W., Flieder, D. B., Falk, R., Fleming, M. V., Gal, A. A., & Koss, M. N. (1998). Survival Analysis of 200 Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors With Clarification of Criteria for Atypical Carcinoid and Its Separation From Typical Carcinoid. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199808000-00003
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.