Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26658837›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2015

What Is the Best Way to Identify Malignant Transformation Within Pancreatic IPMN: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Asma Sultana, Richard Jackson, Gilbert Tim, Emma Bostock, Eftychia E Psarelli, Trevor F Cox, Robert Sutton, Paula Ghaneh, Michael G T Raraty, John P Neoptolemos and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Static and DynamicJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. SupplementalCancers · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Natural History of Pancreatic Cysts.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017
    Review
  19. Imaging in pancreatic disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Asma SultanaNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Richard JacksonMedical Statistics, CRUK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Gilbert TimNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Emma BostockNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Eftychia E PsarelliMedical Statistics, CRUK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Trevor F CoxMedical Statistics, CRUK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Robert SuttonNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paula GhanehNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michael G T RaratyNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
John P NeoptolemosNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher M HalloranNIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBNIHR Liverpool Pancreatic Biomedical Research Unit · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11883Cancer Research UK 15957Cancer Research UK 16186Cancer Research UK 16791Cancer Research UK 16812Cancer Research UK 17680Cancer Research UK 8968Department of Health 08/29/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasias (IPMNs) represent 25% of all cystic neoplasms and are precursor lesions for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to identify the best imaging modality for detecting malignant transformation in IPMN, the sensitivity and specificity of risk features on imaging, and the usefulness of tumor markers in serum and cyst fluid to predict malignancy in IPMN.

methodsDatabases were searched from November 2006 to March 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques/imaging features of suspected malignancy in IPMN using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic (HSROC) approach were performed.

resultsA total of 467 eligible studies were identified, of which 51 studies met the inclusion criteria and 37 of these were incorporated into meta-analyses. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for risk features predictive of malignancy on computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were 0.809 and 0.762 respectively, and on positron emission tomography were 0.968 and 0.911. Mural nodule, cyst size, and main pancreatic duct dilation found on imaging had pooled sensitivity for prediction of malignancy of 0.690, 0.682, and 0.614, respectively, and specificity of 0.798, 0.574, and 0.687. Raised serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels yielded sensitivity of 0.380 and specificity of 0903. Combining parameters yielded a sensitivity of 0.743 and specificity of 0.906.

conclusionsPET holds the most promise in identifying malignant transformation within an IPMN. Combining parameters increases sensitivity and specificity; the presence of mural nodule on imaging was the most sensitive whereas raised serum CA19-9 (>37 KU/l) was the most specific feature predictive of malignancy in IPMNs.

Identifiers

PMID26658837
PMCPMC4816095
OpenAlexW2194150002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.