Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26261722›Full record

ReviewJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2015

Imaging preoperatively for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Jason Alan Pietryga, Desiree E Morgan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Gastrointestinal malignancies in pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason Alan PietrygaDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.
Desiree E MorganDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy which is increasing in incidence and mortality. The fourth leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer death by 2020. Patients with pancreatic cancer have an abysmal 5-year survival of 6%, and 90% of these patients eventually die from the disease. This is in large part due to the commonly advanced stage of disease at the time of diagnosis. Currently, the only potentially curative therapy for pancreatic carcinoma is complete surgical resection. Patients who undergo incomplete resection with residual disease have similar survival rates to those patients with metastatic disease and should be spared this relatively morbid surgery. Thus, the key to impacting prognosis is the detection of smaller and earlier stage lesions, and the key to optimal management is accurately determining which patients have potentially resectable surgery and which patients would not benefit from surgery. Cross-sectional imaging plays an essential role in both the diagnosis and appropriate staging of pancreatic carcinoma. The diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with cross-sectional imaging. Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is the most commonly used, best-validated imaging modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Modern contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been demonstrated to be equivalent to MDCT in detection and staging of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is very sensitive for detecting pancreatic masses; however, due to limitations in adequate overall abdominal staging, it is generally used in addition to or after MDCT. Transabdominal ultrasound and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) have limited roles in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Preoperative imaging is used to characterize patients as having resectable disease, borderline resectable disease, locally advanced disease (unresectable) and metastatic disease (unresectable). As the definitions of borderline resectable and unresectable may vary from institution to institution and within institutions, it is essential to accurately assess and describe the factors relevant to staging including: local extent of tumor, vascular involvement, lymph node involvement and distant metastatic disease. To facilitate this, standardized reporting templates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have been created and published. Structured reporting for pancreatic cancer has been reported to provide superior evaluation of pancreatic cancer, facilitate surgical planning, and increase surgeons' confidence about tumor resectability.

Indexed as

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT)Pancreatic cancerstaging

Identifiers

PMID26261722
PMCPMC4502157

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.