ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Factors associated with missed and misinterpreted cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
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 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The PancreaSure Multianalyte Blood Test Performs Well at Distinguishing Early-Stage Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma from High-Risk Controls: A Retrospective Secondary Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- From Bench to Bedside: The Path Toward Real-World Translation for Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cancer Detection.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Multimodal AI approach combining deep learning imaging and clinical machine learning for pancreatic cancer detection.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Integrating Advanced Endoscopic Techniques and Confocal Microscopy for Early Detection of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2026Review
- Catching pancreatic cancer early: Are we there yet?Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2026Review
- Pancreatic cancer diagnosis on unenhanced CT with deep learning for opportunistic diagnosis.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Validation of a Pretrained Artificial Intelligence Model for Pancreatic Cancer Detection on Diagnosis and Prediagnosis Computed Tomography Scans.Investigative radiology · 2026Article
- Novel silicon-based material decomposition images in diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: comparison with iodine-based and 50-keV virtual monoenergetic images.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and Surgical Management for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Requiring Vascular Resection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analytical Validation of a Serum Biomarker Signature for Detection of Early-Stage Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Canadian radiology: 2025 update.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Confirmatory Clinical Validation of a Serum-Based Biomarker Signature for Detection of Early-Stage Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based automatic detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤ 2 cm with high-resolution computed tomography: impact of the combination of tumor mass detection and indirect indicator evaluation.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- MediONN: an integrated photonic chip optical neural network for deep learning-based semantic segmentation in early detection of pancreatic cancer.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Early detection of pancreatic cancer on computed tomography: advancements with deep learning.Radiology advances · 2025Review
- 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
- Advancements in early detection of pancreatic cancer: the role of artificial intelligence and novel imaging techniques.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively examine US, CT, and MR imaging examinations of missed or misinterpreted pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and identify factors which may have confounded detection or interpretation.
methodsWe reviewed 107 examinations in 66/257 patients (26%, mean age 73.7 years) diagnosed with PDAC in 2014 and 2015, with missed or misinterpreted imaging findings as determined by a prior study. For each patient, images and reports were independently reviewed by two radiologists, and in consensus, the following factors which may have confounded assessment were recorded: inherent tumor factors, concurrent pancreatic pathology, technical limitations, and cognitive biases. Secondary signs of PDAC associated with each examination were recorded and compared with the original report to determine which findings were missed.
resultsThere were 66/107 (62%) and 49/107 (46%) cases with missed and misinterpreted imaging findings, respectively. A significant number of missed tumors were < 2 cm (45/107, 42%), isoattenuating on CT (32/72, 44%) or non-contour deforming (44/107, 41%). Most (29/49, 59%) misinterpreted examinations were reported as uncomplicated pancreatitis. Almost all examinations (94/107, 88%) demonstrated secondary signs; pancreatic duct dilation was the most common (65/107, 61%) and vascular invasion was the most commonly missed 35/39 (90%). Of the CT and MRIs, 28 of 88 (32%) had suboptimal contrast dosing. Inattentional blindness was the most common cognitive bias, identified in 55/107 (51%) of the exams.
conclusionRecognizing pitfalls of PDAC detection and interpretation, including intrinsic tumor features, secondary signs, technical factors, and cognitive biases, can assist radiologists in making an early and accurate diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • There were 66/107 (62%) and 49/107 (46%) cases with missed and misinterpreted imaging findings, respectively, with tumoral, technical, and cognitive factors leading to the misdiagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. • The majority (29/49, 59%) of misinterpreted cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were mistaken for pancreatitis, where an underlying mass or secondary signs were not appreciated due to inflammatory changes. • The most common missed secondary sign of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was vascular encasement, missed in 35/39 (90%) of cases, indicating the importance of evaluating the peri-pancreatic vasculature.
Indexed as
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.