ReviewNorth American journal of medical sciences2015
Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm of Pancreas.
Review in North American journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioinformatic Analysis and Integration of Transcriptome and Proteome Results Identify Key Coding and Noncoding Genes Predicting Malignancy in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas.BioMed research international · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of cystic neoplasms using EUS, MRI, and CT scan and treatment strategy.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Pancreaticobiliary Fistula Caused by Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Adenoma Requiring Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Technical success, clinical efficacy, and safety of endoscopic minor papilla interventions for symptomatic pancreatic diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Successful embolization with subsequent pancreaticoduodenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm hemorrhage: a case report and review of literature.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Deep Learning Applications in Pancreatic Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Pathologic Features of Primary Pancreatic Malignancies.Cancer treatment and research · 2024Review
- SDC1 and ITGA2 as novel prognostic biomarkers for PDAC related to IPMN.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Improving Pancreatic Cyst Management: Artificial Intelligence-Powered Prediction of Advanced Neoplasms through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Confocal Endomicroscopy.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- A Comparison of Single Dimension and Volume Measurements in the Risk Stratification of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions and Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2023Review
- Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm mimicking a duodenal tumor.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Pancreatic colloid adenocarcinoma arising from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: Radiologic-pathologic correlation with cinematic rendering.Acta radiologica open · 2023Article
- A Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Chemoablative Techniques for Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: A Narrative Review.Acta medica Lituanic · 2023Review
- Microbiota in the Natural History of Pancreatic Cancer: From Predisposition to Therapy.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the pancreas are neoplasms that are characterized by ductal dilation, intraductal papillary growth, and thick mucus secretion. This relatively recently defined pathology is evolving in terms of its etiopathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis, management, and treatment guidelines. A PubMed database search was performed. All the relevant abstracts in English language were reviewed and the articles in which cases of IPMN could be identified were further scrutinized. Information of IPMN was derived, and duplication of information in several articles and those with areas of persisting uncertainties were excluded. The recent consensus guidelines were examined. The reported incidence of malignancy varies from 57% to 92% in the main duct-IPMN (MD-IPMN) and from 6% to 46% in the branch duct-IPMN (BD-IPMN). The features of high-risk malignant lesions that raise concern include obstructive jaundice in a patient with a cystic lesion in the pancreatic head, the findings on radiological imaging of a mass lesion of >30 mm, enhanced solid component, and the main pancreatic duct (MPD) of size ≥10 mm; while duct size 5-9 mm and cyst size <3 mm are considered as "worrisome features." Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are primary investigations in diagnosing and following up on these patients. The role of pancreatoscopy and the analysis of aspirated cystic fluid for cytology and DNA analysis is still to be established. In general, resection is recommended for most MD-IPMN, mixed variant, and symptomatic BD-IPMN. The 5-year survival of patients after surgical resection for noninvasive IPMN is reported to be at 77-100%, while for those with invasive carcinoma, it is significantly lower at 27-60%. The follow-up of these patients could vary from 6 months to 1 year and would depend on the risk stratification for invasive malignancy and the pathology of the resected specimen. The understanding of IPMN has evolved over the years. The recent guidelines have played a role in this regard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.