Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31143072›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019

Role of abdominal ultrasound for the surveillance follow-up of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a cost-effective safe alternative to the routine use of magnetic resonance imaging.

Luca Morelli, Simone Guadagni, Valerio Borrelli, Roberta Pisano, Gregorio Di Franco, Matteo Palmeri, Niccolò Furbetta, Dario Gambaccini, Santino Marchi, Piero Boraschi and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Economic evaluations of early detection strategies for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

14 authors.

Luca MorelliGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Simone GuadagniGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Valerio BorrelliDiagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound in Transplants Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Roberta PisanoDiagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound in Transplants Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Gregorio Di FrancoGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Matteo PalmeriGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Niccolò FurbettaGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Dario GambacciniGastroenterology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Santino MarchiGastroenterology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Piero Boraschi2 Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Luca BastianiInstitute of Clinical Physiology, National Council of Research, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Alessandro CampatelliDiagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound in Transplants Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Franco MoscaEndoCAS (Center for Computer Assisted Surgery), University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.
Giulio Di CandioGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Translational and New Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy.

Funding

Data commons for 'omic, microscopy and analysis core facilitiesS10OD018164 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WRAY, GREGORY A. · 2014 to 2014
$598k
NIH HHS S10 OD018164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN), without surgical indication at the time of diagnosis according to current guidelines, require lifetime image-based surveillance follow-up. In these patients, the current European evidenced-based guidelines advise magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning every 6 mo in the first year, then annually for the next five years, without reference to any role for trans-abdominal ultrasound (US). In this study, we report on our clinical experience of a follow-up strategy of image-based surveillance with US, and restricted use of MRI every two years and for urgent evaluation whenever suspicious changes are detected by US.

aimTo report the results and cost-efficacy of a US-based surveillance follow-up for known PCNs, with restricted use of MRI.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the records of all the patients treated in our institution with non-surgical PCN who received follow-up abdominal US and restricted MRI from the time of diagnosis, between January 2012 and January 2017. After US diagnosis and MRI confirmation, all patients underwent US surveillance every 6 mo for the first year, and then annually. A MRI scan was routinely performed every 2 years, or at any stage for all suspicious US findings. In this communication, we reported the clinical results of this alternative follow-up, and the results of a comparative cost-analysis between our surveillance protocol (abdominal US and restricted MRI) and the same patient cohort that has been followed-up in strict accordance with the European guidelines recommended for an exclusive MRI-based surveillance protocol.

resultsIn the 5-year period, 200 patients entered the prescribed US-restricted MRI surveillance follow-up. Mean follow-up period was 25.1 ± 18.2 mo. Surgery was required in two patients (1%) because of the appearance of suspicious features at imaging (with complete concordance between the US scan and the on-demand MRI). During the follow-up, US revealed changes in PCN appearance in 28 patients (14%). These comprised main pancreatic duct dilatation (

conclusionIn patients with non-surgical PCN at the time of diagnosis, US surveillance could be a safe complementary approach to MRI, delaying and reducing the numbers of second level examinations and therefore reducing the costs.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAftercareAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyWatchful WaitingMagnetic resonance imagingPancreatic cystic neoplasmsSurveillanceUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID31143072
PMCPMC6526159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.