Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27822633›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2017

Survival Analysis and Risk for Progression of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasia of the Pancreas (IPMN) Under Surveillance: A Single-Institution Experience.

Marco Del Chiaro, Zeeshan Ateeb, Marcus Reuterwall Hansson, Elena Rangelova, Ralf Segersvärd, Nikolaos Kartalis, Christoph Ansorge, Matthias J Löhr, Urban Arnelo, Caroline Verbeke

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02078245 (Quality Control Study of MR Based Screening of Individual With Increased Risk for Pancreas Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02078245 unknown statusnot on this map

Quality Control Study of MR Based Screening of Individual With Increased Risk for Pancreas Cancer

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorKarolinska University HospitalRan2010 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsHereditary Pancreatitis, Hereditary Pancreatic CancerArmsMRI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Assessing Follow-Up Duration in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Pancreatic cystic neoplasms].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  14. Rare tumours of the pancreas: monocentric study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Should non-invasive diffuse main-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms be treated with total pancreatectomy?HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2022
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marco Del ChiaroPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. marco.del.chiaro@ki.se.
Zeeshan AteebPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marcus Reuterwall HanssonPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elena RangelovaPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ralf SegersvärdPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nikolaos KartalisDivision of Radiology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christoph AnsorgePancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Matthias J LöhrPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Urban ArneloPancreatic Surgery Unit, Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Center for Digestive Diseases Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Caroline VerbekeDepartment of Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile surveillance of the majority of patients with IPMN is considered best practice, consensus regarding the duration of follow-up is lacking. This study assessed the survival rate and risk for progression of IPMN under surveillance.

methodsAll patients diagnosed with and surveyed for IPMN between January 2008 and December 2013 were identified and assigned to two groups: patients without indication for surgery (Group 1), and patients whose IPMN required surgery but were inoperable for general reasons (Group 2). Disease progression and survival data were compared between both groups.

resultsIn total 503 patients were identified, of whom 444 (88.3%) were followed up. Group 1 included 395 patients, and Group 2 had 49. In Group 1, IPMN-specific 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 100, 100, and 94.2%, respectively. Four patients died of associated or concomitant pancreatic cancer, and 230 patients (58.2%) experienced disease progression. The 1-, 4-, 10-year cumulative risk for progression and for surgery was 11.2, 70.6, 97.5, and 2.9, 26.2, 72.1%, respectively. In Group 2, the 1-, 5-, 10-year IPMN-specific survival rate was 90.7, 74.8, and 74.8%, respectively.

conclusionsThis study confirmed the safety of surveillance for patients with IPMN who do not require surgery. However, the risk for disease progression and for surgery increases significantly over time. The study results support International and European guidelines not to discontinue IPMN surveillance and validate the European recommendation to intensify follow-up after 5 years. The fairly good prognosis of patients whose IPMN requires surgery but cannot undergo resection suggests a relatively indolent disease biology.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionWatchful WaitingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Cystic, Mucinous, and SerousPancreatectomyPancreatic Ducts

Identifiers

PMID27822633
PMCPMC5339331
OpenAlexW2551936676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.