ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Does Computed Tomography Have the Ability to Differentiate Aggressive From Nonaggressive Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm?
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of solid pseudopapillary tumor invasiveness of the pancreas based on multiphase contrast-enhanced CT radiomics nomogram.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Analysis of invasiveness and tumor-associated macrophages infiltration in solid pseudopapillary tumors of pancreas.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Clinical characteristics, surgical strategies, and outcome of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: retrospective analysis in a single center.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- CT-based differentiation of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm and nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumor of pancreas.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Surgical Resection of 78 Pancreatic Solid Pseudopapillary Tumors: a 30-Year Single Institutional Experience.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Prediction of malignancy and adverse outcome of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the ability of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) to differentiate aggressive from nonaggressive solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty treatment-naive patients with pathologically proven pancreatic SPNs were included. Imaging characteristics were determined by consensus of 3 radiologists blinded to histopathologic aggressiveness. All patients underwent 4-phase CECT using a pancreatic protocol. The regions of interest of the tumor and the normal pancreas were documented on all phases. Lymph nodes were considered metastatic if greater than 1.0 cm in short-axis diameter.Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare between aggressive and nonaggressive tumors.
resultsNo significant difference was noted between imaging covariates, such as internal hemorrhage, calcification, wall thickness perceptibility, vascular invasion, margins, cystic component, and pancreatic and biliary ductal dilation. Tumors with greater than 62.5 Hounsfield units and progressive enhancement during the delayed phase had aggressive characteristics (P = 0.03).
conclusionsOn delayed phase CECT, pathologically aggressive SPNs may show greater enhancement than nonaggressive SPNs.
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.