Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24272022›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

Victoria B Allen, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Yemisi Takwoingi, Amun Kalia, Brian R Davidson

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Surgical exploration without resection in pancreatic and periampullary tumors: Report from a national database.Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Predicting positive peritoneal cytology in pancreatic cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2017
    Review
  13. Diagnostic Laparoscopy Prior to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer Is High Yield: an Analysis of Outcomes and Costs.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Minireview on laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Victoria B AllenUniversity College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG.
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Yemisi Takwoingi
Amun Kalia
Brian R Davidson
The Royal Free Hospital · GBUCL Australia · AUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Laparoscopy can detect metastases not visualised on CT scanning, enabling better assessment of the spread of cancer (staging of cancer). There has been no systematic review or meta-analysis assessing the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy performed as an add-on test to CT scanning in the assessment of curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via OvidSP (from inception to 13 September 2012), and Science Citation Index Expanded (from 1980 to 13 September 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan, where confirmation of liver or peritoneal involvement was by histopathological examination of suspicious (liver or peritoneal) lesions obtained at diagnostic laparoscopy or laparotomy. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. The specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy in all studies was 1 because there were no false positives since laparoscopy and the reference standard are one and the same if histological examination after diagnostic laparoscopy is positive. Therefore, the sensitivities were meta-analysed using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model. The probability of unresectability in patients who had a negative laparoscopy (post-test probability for patients with a negative test result) was calculated using the median probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the negative likelihood ratio derived from the model (specificity of 1 assumed). The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of diagnostic laparoscopy compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone. MAIN

resultsFifteen studies with a total of 1015 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study including 52 patients had a low risk of bias and low applicability concern in the patient selection domain. The median pre-test probability of unresectable disease after CT scanning across studies was 40.3% (that is 40 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan were found to have unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary sensitivity of diagnostic laparoscopy was 68.7% (95% CI 54.3% to 80.2%). Assuming a pre-test probability of 40.3%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for patients with a negative test result was 0.17 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.24). This indicates that if a patient is said to have resectable disease after diagnostic laparoscopy and CT scan, there is a 17% probability that their cancer will be unresectable compared to a 40% probability for those receiving CT alone.A subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer gave a summary sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 41.1% to 86.5%). The post-test probability of unresectable disease after being considered resectable on both CT and diagnostic laparoscopy was 18% compared to 40% for those receiving CT alone. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDiagnostic laparoscopy may decrease the rate of unnecessary laparotomy in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. On average, using diagnostic laparoscopy with biopsy and histopathological confirmation of suspicious lesions prior to laparotomy would avoid 23 unnecessary laparotomies in 100 patients in whom resection of cancer with curative intent is planned.

Indexed as

Ampulla of VaterUnnecessary ProceduresCommon Bile Duct NeoplasmsHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID24272022
OpenAlexW1583589401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.