ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2017
Differential diagnosis between intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with an associated invasive carcinoma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on ultrasonography: the utility of echo intensity and contrast enhancement.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the utility of echo intensity and contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis between intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with an associated invasive carcinoma (IPMN-IC) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on ultrasonography.
methodsThis study included eight and 37 patients who had pathologically confirmed IPMN-IC and PDAC, respectively, and were enrolled for a comparative analysis of the sonographic features of the tumors. In the quantitative echo intensity evaluation, the two groups were compared with respect to the difference between the tumor intensity and the pancreatic intensity (TI-PI) and between the tumor intensity and the vascular intensity (TI-VI). In the quantitative contrast enhancement evaluation, the increase in echo intensity (ΔTI) and increase in echo intensity per unit of time (slope) were compared between the groups. The echo intensity and contrast enhancement were also compared between the two groups in patients with T3-T4 disease. In addition, the correlations of the histological type, tumor size, stromal type, and T factor with echogenicity and contrast enhancement were analyzed.
resultsIPMN-IC had significantly greater echo intensity and contrast enhancement than PDAC (TI-PI, P=0.004; TI-VI, P=0.001; ΔTI, P=0.012; slope, P=0.002). In T3-T4 disease, IPMN-IC also showed greater echo intensity and faster enhancement than PDAC. Echo intensity and contrast enhancement were correlated with histological type (TI-PI, P=0.003; TI-VI, P<0.001; ΔTI, P=0.007; slope, P<0.001).
conclusionIPMN-IC and PDAC can be differentiated by the quantitative evaluation of echo intensity and contrast enhancement.
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.