Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30595868›Full record

ArticleCurrent health sciences journal

Which is the Best Imaging Method in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis and Staging - CT, MRI or EUS?

M I Costache, Cornelia Alexandra Costache, Cristiana Iulia Dumitrescu, A A Tica, M Popescu, Elena Angela Baluta, Alina Camelia Anghel, A Saftoiu, Daniela Dumitrescu

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M I CostacheDepartment of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania.
Cornelia Alexandra CostacheDepartment of Neurology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania.
Cristiana Iulia DumitrescuDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania.
A A TicaDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania.
M PopescuDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania.
Elena Angela BalutaDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Clinical Emergency County Hospital, Craiova, Romania.
Alina Camelia AnghelDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Clinical Emergency County Hospital, Craiova, Romania.
A SaftoiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania.
Daniela DumitrescuDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania.
University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova · ROCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImaging has a decisive role in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer, the most used imaging methods being computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography. MATERIAL AND

methodThey were studied retrospectively over a 3 years period, 140 patients with pancreatic cancer. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aims to determine the effectiveness of CT, MRI and EUS in diagnosis and staging of panceatic cancer.

resultsCT showed a diagnostic accuracy of 83.3%, with sensitivity and specificity of 81.4% and 43% respectively. MRI showed superior diagnostic accuracy compared to CT (89,1%). However, EUS demonstrated the best diagnostic value in PC (accuracy of 92,7%). Concerning the locoregional staging, the 3 diagnostic methods showed similar result. There were no significant differences concerning the diagnosis of intra-abdominal metastases. Differences have appeared in the case of extra-abdominal. Thus, there were 4 cases of lung metastases which have been identified only on CT and MRI.

conclusionEUS is the most effective technique used in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, the present study demonstrating an accuracy of 92.7%. Moreover, EUS offers the possibility to collect samples for cytological examination by EUS guided fine needle aspiration. However, there are some limitations of EUS in identifying extra-abdominal metastases. Thus, the assessment of tumor extension must be completing by performing CT or MRI.

Indexed as

acute pancreatitisbiochemical and imagisticmultiparameter scores

Identifiers

PMID30595868
PMCPMC6284179
OpenAlexW2990335336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.