ArticleBJS open2018
Development and multicentre validation of a prognostic model to predict resectability of pancreatic head malignancy.
Article in BJS open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic volume perfusion CT for preoperative multidimensional resectability assessment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Difficulty of Detecting Occult Metastases in Patients with Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Development and External Validation of a Preoperative Prediction Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt the time of planned pancreatoduodenectomy patients frequently undergo exploratory laparotomy without resection, leading to delayed systemic therapy. This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for the preoperative prediction of resectability of pancreatic head tumours.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients undergoing attempted resection for confirmed malignant tumours of the pancreatic head in a university hospital in Hannover, Germany. The prognostic value of patient and tumour characteristics was investigated in a multivariable logistic regression model. External validation was performed using data from two other centres.
resultsSome 109 patients were included in the development cohort, with 51 and 175 patients in the two validation cohorts. Eighty patients (73·4 per cent) in the development cohort underwent resection, and 37 (73 per cent) and 141 (80·6 per cent) in the validation cohorts. The main reasons for performing no resection in the development cohort were: local invasion of vasculature or arterial abutment (15 patients, 52 per cent), and liver (12, 41 per cent), peritoneal (8, 28 per cent) and aortocaval lymph node (6, 21 per cent) metastases. The final model contained the following variables: time to surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·98 to 0·99), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 concentration (OR 0·99, 0·99 to 0·99), jaundice (OR 4·45, 1·21 to 16·36) and back pain (OR 0·02, 0·00 to 0·22), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUROC) of 0·918 in the development cohort. AUROC values were 0·813 and 0·761 in the validation cohorts. The positive predictive value of the final model for prediction of resectability was 98·0 per cent in the development cohort, and 91·7 and 94·7 per cent in the two external validation cohorts. [Corrections added on 18 July 2018, after first online publication: The figures for OR of the variables time to surgery and CA19-9 in the abstract and in Table 3 and Table 4 were amended from 1·00 to 0·99].
conclusionFor preoperative prediction of the likelihood of resectability of pancreatic head tumours, this validated model is a valuable addition to CT findings.
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.