Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28407088›Full record

ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2017

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: conceptual evolution and current approach to image-based classification.

J W Gilbert, B Wolpin, T Clancy, J Wang, H Mamon, A B Shinagare, J Jagannathan, M Rosenthal

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J W GilbertDepartment of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
B WolpinHarvard Medical School.
T ClancyHarvard Medical School.
J WangHarvard Medical School.
H MamonHarvard Medical School.
A B ShinagareDepartment of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
J JagannathanDepartment of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
M RosenthalDepartment of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHarvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

Circulating Biomarker Consortium for Pancreatic Cancer Early DetectionU01CA210171 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI Michael H. Rosenthal, Brian Matthew Wolpin · 2016 to 2026
$8.7M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA210171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic imaging plays a critical role in the initial diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Over the past decade, the concept of 'borderline resectable' pancreatic cancer has emerged to describe a distinct subset of patients existing along the spectrum from resectable to locally advanced disease for whom a microscopically margin-positive (R1) resection is considered relatively more likely, primarily due to the relationship of the primary tumor with surrounding vasculature. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review traces the conceptual evolution of borderline resectability from a radiological perspective, including the debates over the key imaging criteria that define the thresholds between resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced or metastatic disease. This review also addresses the data supporting neoadjuvant therapy in this population and discusses current imaging practices before and during treatment.

resultsA growing body of evidence suggests that the borderline resectable group of patients may particularly benefit from neoadjuvant therapy to increase the likelihood of an ultimately margin-negative (R0) resection. Unfortunately, anatomic and imaging criteria to define borderline resectability are not yet universally agreed upon, with several classification systems proposed in the literature and considerable variance in institution-by-institution practice. As a result of this lack of consensus, as well as overall small patient numbers and lack of established clinical trials dedicated to borderline resectable patients, accurate evidence-based diagnostic categorization and treatment selection for this subset of patients remains a significant challenge.

conclusionsClinicians and radiologists alike should be cognizant of evolving imaging criteria for borderline resectability given their profound implications for treatment strategy, follow-up recommendations, and prognosis.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaHumansMargins of ExcisionNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm MetastasisPancreatic Neoplasmsborderline resectableCTneoadjuvant therapypancreatic adenocarcinomastaging criteria

Identifiers

PMID28407088
PMCPMC5834155
OpenAlexW2607422353

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.