ArticleEuropean radiology2021
The implications of missed or misinterpreted cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on imaging: a multi-centered population-based study.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting and Distinguishing Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma via Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Extracellular vesicle and particle biomarkers in cancer: a machine learning blueprint for liquid biopsy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Canadian radiology: 2025 update.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Diagnostic challenges of pancreatic carcinoma presenting as acute pancreatitis: A case series and literature review.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Review
- AI-Driven insights in pancreatic cancer imaging: from pre-diagnostic detection to prognostication.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessing the robustness of a machine-learning model for early detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA): evaluating resilience to variations in image acquisition and radiomics workflow using image perturbation methods.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Article
- Can we rely on contrast-enhanced CT to identify pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A population-based study in sensitivity and factors associated with false negatives.European radiology · 2023Article
- Prevalence, features, and explanations of missed and misinterpreted pancreatic cancer on imaging: a matched case-control study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
- Radiomics-based Machine-learning Models Can Detect Pancreatic Cancer on Prediagnostic Computed Tomography Scans at a Substantial Lead Time Before Clinical Diagnosis.Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Factors associated with missed and misinterpreted cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the proportion of missed/misinterpreted imaging examinations of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and their association with the diagnostic interval and survival.
methodsTwo hundred fifty-seven patients (mean age, 71.8 years) diagnosed with PDAC in 2014-2015 were identified from the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry. Demographics, stage, tumor location, and dates of initial presentation, diagnosis, and, if applicable, surgery and death were recorded. US, CT, and MRI examinations during the diagnostic interval were independently graded by two radiologists using the RADPEER system; discordance was resolved in consensus. Mean diagnostic interval and survival were compared amongst RADPEER groups (one-way ANOVA). Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for age (< 65, 65-79, ≥ 80), sex, tumor location (proximal/distal), stage (I-IV), surgery (yes/no), chemotherapy (yes/no), and RADPEER score (1-3). Association between these covariates and survival was assessed (multivariate Cox proportion hazards model).
resultsRADPEER 1-3 scores were assigned to 191, 27, and 39 patients, respectively. Mean diagnostic intervals were 53, 86, and 192 days, respectively (p = 0.018). There were only 3/257 (1.2%) survivors. Mean survival was not different between groups (p = 0.43). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed worse survival in RADPEER 1-2 (p = 0.007), older age (p < 0.001), distal PDAC (p = 0.016), stage (p < 0.0001), and no surgery (p < 0.001); survival was not different with sex (p = 0.083). Cox analysis showed better survival in RADPEER 3 (p = 0.005), women (p = 0.002), surgical patients (p < 0.001), and chemotherapy (p < 0.001), and worse survival in stage IV (p = 0.006).
conclusionImaging-related delays occurred in one-fourth of patients and were associated with longer diagnostic intervals but not worse survival, potentially due to overall poor survival in the cohort. KEY POINTS: • One-fourth of patients (66/257, 25.7%) with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) underwent imaging examinations that demonstrated manifestations of the disease, but findings were either missed or misinterpreted; RADPEER 2 and 3 scores were assigned to 10.5% and 15.2% of patients, respectively. • Patients with imaging examinations assigned RADPEER 3 scores were associated with significantly longer diagnostic intervals (192 ± 323 days) than RADPEER 1 (53 ± 86 days) and RADPEER 2 (86 ± 120 days) (p < 0.001). • Imaging-related diagnostic delays were not associated with worse survival; however, this may have been confounded by the overall poor survival in our cohort (only 3/257 (1.2%) survivors).
Indexed as
Identifiers
32785768What 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.