Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32811523›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2020

Accuracy of various criteria for lymph node staging in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Florian N Loch, Patrick Asbach, Matthias Haas, Hendrik Seeliger, Katharina Beyer, Christian Schineis, Claudius E Degro, Georgios A Margonis, Martin E Kreis, Carsten Kamphues

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Florian N LochCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany. Florian.Loch@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1513-8339
Patrick AsbachCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias HaasCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Hendrik SeeligerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Katharina BeyerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Christian SchineisCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Claudius E DegroCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Georgios A MargonisThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Blalock 688, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Martin E KreisCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Carsten KamphuesCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLymph node staging of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head (PDAC) by cross-sectional imaging is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of expanded criteria in nodal staging in PDAC patients.

methodsSixty-six patients with histologically confirmed PDAC that underwent primary surgery were included in this retrospective IRB-approved study. Cross-sectional imaging studies (CT and/or MRI) were evaluated by a radiologist blinded to histopathology. Number and size of lymph nodes were measured (short-axis diameter) and characterized in terms of expanded morphological criteria of border contour (spiculated, lobulated, and indistinct) and texture (homogeneous or inhomogeneous). Sensitivities and specificities were calculated with histopathology as a reference standard.

resultsForty-eight of 66 patients (80%) had histologically confirmed lymph node metastases (pN+). Sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's Index for the criterion "size" were 44.2%, 82.4%, and 0.27; for "inhomogeneous signal intensity" 25.6%, 94.1%, and 0.20; and for "border contour" 62.7%, 52.9%, and 0.16, respectively. There was a significant association between the number of visible lymph nodes on preoperative CT and lymph node involvement (pN+, p = 0.031).

conclusionLymph node staging in PDAC is mainly limited due to low sensitivity for detection of metastatic disease. Using expanded morphological criteria instead of size did not improve regional nodal staging due to sensitivity remaining low. Combining specific criteria yields improved sensitivity with specificity and PPV remaining high.

Indexed as

Lymph NodesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyCross-sectional imagingDuctal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic headLymph nodesMagnetic resonance imagingNeoadjuvant therapyStaging

Identifiers

PMID32811523
PMCPMC7436989
OpenAlexW3066707434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.