ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2019
Detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer: value of second-opinion interpretations of cross-sectional images by subspecialized radiologists.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility Study: Early Experiences With a Cancer Center's Virtual Expert Medical Opinion Program.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Risk Factors and Vascular Features Associated With Local Recurrence in Pancreatic Cancer Post-Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- CT Surveillance for Local Recurrence After Pancreatic Cancer Resection: Evaluation of Imaging Findings From the SAR Disease-Focused Panel Consensus Statement.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Article
- Comparison of early and lateScientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the performance of and interobserver agreement on postoperative baseline CT findings in the identification of locoregional recurrence in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recurrence: practice pattern on standardized imaging and reporting from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel on PDAC.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Recommendations for additional imaging of abdominal imaging examinations: frequency, benefit, and cost.European radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the value of second-opinion interpretation of cross-sectional images by subspecialized radiologists to diagnose recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgery.
methodsThe IRB approved and issued a waiver of informed consent for this retrospective study. Initial and second-opinion interpretations of 69 consecutive submitted MRI or CT follow-up after pancreatic cancer resection between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013 were evaluated by one oncologic imaging radiologist, who was blinded to patient's clinical details and histopathologic data. The reviewer was asked to classify each interpretation in reference of the diagnosis of PDAC recurrence. It was also recorded if the radiologic interpretation recommended additional imaging studies to confirm recurrence. The diagnosis of recurrence was determined by pathology when available, otherwise by imaging follow-up, clinical, or laboratory assessments. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to assess agreement between initial and second-opinion interpretations. The differences between the initial and second-opinion interpretations were examined using McNemar test or Bowker's test of symmetry.
resultsDisagreement on recurrence between the initial report and the second-opinion interpretation was observed in 32% of cases (22/69; k = 0.44). Second-opinion interpretations had a higher sensitivity and a higher specificity on recurrence compared to the initial interpretations (0.93 vs. 0.75 and 0.90 vs. 0.68, respectively), and the difference in specificity was significant (p = 0.016). Additional imaging studies were recommended more frequently in the initial interpretation (22% vs. 6%, p = 0.006).
conclusionsOur study shows the second-opinion interpretation by subspecialized radiologists improves the detection of pancreatic cancer recurrence after surgical resection.
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.