The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Grading the neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an evidence-based proposal
Open accessAbstract
Lung neuroendocrine tumors are catalogued in four categories by the World Health Organization (WHO 2004) classification. Its reproducibility and prognostic efficacy was disputed. The WHO 2010 classification of digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms is based on Ki67 proliferation assessment and proved prognostically effective. This study aims at comparing these two classifications and at defining a prognostic grading system for lung neuroendocrine tumors. The study included 399 patients who underwent surgery and with at least 1 year follow-up between 1989 and 2011. Data on 21 variables were collected, and performance of grading systems and their components was compared by Cox regression and multivariable analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided. At Cox analysis, WHO 2004 stratified patients into three major groups with statistically significant survival difference (typical carcinoid vs atypical carcinoid (AC),P=0.021; AC vs large-cell/small-cell lung neuroendocrine carcinomas,P<0.001). Optimal discrimination in three groups was observed by Ki67% (Ki67% cutoffs: G1 <4, G2 4–<25, G3 ≥25; G1 vs G2,P=0.021; and G2 vs G3,P≤0.001), mitotic count (G1 ≤2, G2 >2–47, G3 >47; G1 vs G2,P≤0.001; and G2 vs G3,P≤0.001), and presence of necrosis (G1 absent, G2 <10% of sample, G3 >10% of sample; G1 vs G2,P≤0.001; and G2 vs G3,P≤0.001) at uni and multivariable analyses. The combination of these three variables resulted in a simple and effective grading system. A three-tiers grading system based on Ki67 index, mitotic count, and necrosis with cutoffs specifically generated for lung neuroendocrine tumors is prognostically effective and accurate.
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
Cites
NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2089 · Cited by 64,638
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-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rindi, G., Klersy, C., Inzani, F., Fellegara, G., Ampollini, L., Ardizzoni, A., Campanini, N., Carbognani, P., De Pas, T. M., Galetta, D., Granone, P. L., Righi, L., Rusca, M., Spaggiari, L., Tiseo, M., Viale, G., Volante, M., Papotti, M., & Pelosi, G.
- Venue
- Endocrine-Related Cancer
- Publisher
- Bioscientifica
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 1351-0088 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-6821
- OpenAlex
- W2125448413
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.13
- 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: Grading the neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an evidence-based proposal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1530/erc-13-0246
- The paper
- Rindi, G., Klersy, C., Inzani, F., Fellegara, G., Ampollini, L., Ardizzoni, A., Campanini, N., Carbognani, P., De Pas, T. M., Galetta, D., Granone, P. L., Righi, L., Rusca, M., Spaggiari, L., Tiseo, M., Viale, G., Volante, M., Papotti, M., & Pelosi, G. (2014). Grading the neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an evidence-based proposal. Endocrine-Related Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1530/erc-13-0246
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.