Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33123793›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2021

CT in the prediction of margin-negative resection in pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sohee Park, Jong Keon Jang, Jae Ho Byun, Jin Hee Kim, Seung Soo Lee, Hyoung Jung Kim, Seung Baek Hong, Seong Ho Park

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Post-neoadjuvant treatment pancreatic cancer resectability and outcome prediction using CT,Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sohee ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Jong Keon JangDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. jongkeon.jang@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2938-6635
Jae Ho ByunDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Jin Hee KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Seung Soo LeeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Hyoung Jung KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Seung Baek HongDepartment of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, 49241, South Korea.
Seong Ho ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Ulsan College · KRPusan National University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CT-determined resectability following neoadjuvant treatment for predicting margin-negative resection (R0 resection) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

methodsOriginal studies with sufficient details to obtain the sensitivity and specificity of CT-determined resectability following neoadjuvant treatment, with a reference on the pathological margin status, were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until February 24, 2020. The identified studies were divided into two groups based on the criteria of R0 resectable tumor (ordinary criterion: resectable PDAC alone; extended criterion: resectable and borderline resectable PDAC). The meta-analytic summary of the sensitivity and specificity for each criterion was estimated separately using a bivariate random-effect model. Summary results of the two criteria were compared using a joint-model bivariate meta-regression.

resultsOf 739 studies initially searched, 6 studies (6 with ordinary criterion and 5 with extended criterion) were included for analysis. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity and specificity was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-73%; I

conclusionsFor determining resectability on CT, the ordinary criterion might be highly specific but insensitive for predicting R0 resection, whereas the extended criterion increased sensitivity but would decrease specificity. Further investigations using quantitative parameters may improve the identification of R0 resection. KEY POINTS: • CT-determined resectability of PDAC after neoadjuvant treatment using the ordinary criterion shows low sensitivity and high specificity in predicting R0 resection. • With the extended criterion, CT-determined resectability shows higher sensitivity but lower specificity than with the ordinary criterion. • CT-determined resectability with both criteria achieved suboptimal diagnostic performances, suggesting that care should be taken while selecting surgical candidates and when determining the surgical extent after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with PDAC.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalPancreatic NeoplasmsHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiagnosisNeoadjuvant therapyPancreatectomyPancreatic neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID33123793
OpenAlexW3095682866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.