Extent of Lymph Node Dissection for Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of nodal disease remains controversial for small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (SB-NETs). Debates remain regarding the therapeutic role and extent of routine lymph node dissection (LND) for localized SB-NETs, as well as the need for aggressive resection of advanced loco-regional SB-NETs with mesenteric nodal masses. This review will address these questions regarding lymph node dissection for well-differentiated WHO grade 1 and 2 SB-NETs. In general, the aggressiveness and radicality of resection should be balanced against the length of bowel resected and post-operative functional outcomes. In localized SB-NETs with clinically negative lymph nodes, a nodal harvest of ≥ 8 lymph nodes provides accurate staging, but has not been shown to confer survival benefit. For loco-regional SB-NETs with clinically positive lymph nodes identified on imaging, 4 stages of nodal extent have been described: stage 1 nodes are located near to the intestinal border, stage 2 on arterial branches close to the origin of the SMA, stage 3 along the SMA itself, and stage 4 extend in the retroperitoneum under the pancreatic neck. In SB-NETs, every attempt should be made at resection of the primary tumor and the nodal mesenteric mass for curative-intent management and to prevent debilitating complications from mesenteric fibrosis. A mesenteric-sparing approach is favored to allow for resection for complex proximal nodal masses while preserving intestinal length and function. All patients with SB-NETs with nodal mesenteric mass should be assessed by a surgeon for resection; if deemed unresectable, consideration should be given to assessment in high-volume NETs centres to confirm proximal mesenteric-sparing resection is not feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".