ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Tumor resectability and response on CT following neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: inter-observer agreement study.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Tumor Regression and Survival Outcomes in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma After Neoadjuvant Treatment according to CAP Grading System: Clinical Usefulness and Limitations.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Does CT overestimate extra-pancreatic perineural invasion in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy?The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Preoperative chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgical decision-making in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFirst, to measure inter-observer agreement regarding tumor resectability and response, and second, to measure diagnostic performance in predicting negative resection margin, on re-staging CTs of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer from 2017 to 2020. Six readers independently evaluated initial staging and re-staging CT images. They categorized the resectability on re-staging CT based on the NCCN guideline, and evaluated tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy according to our proposed criteria on a 5-grade scale. For inter-observer agreement, Gwet's agreement coefficients were used. A crossed random effect model was used to pool the sensitivity and specificity of six readers in predicting negative resection margin.
resultsSeventy-seven patients with the median age of 66 (59-70) were included. The pooled agreement for tumor resectability was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.71) for differentiating the three categories, and 0.84 (0.77-0.91) for differentiating resectable or borderline resectable cancer vs. unresectable cancer. Agreement for tumor response grade was 0.89 (0.85-0.92). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting negative resection margin were 48% (43-52%) and 61% (57-64%), respectively, when only "resectable" on re-staging CT was considered as index test positive. When either "resectable"' or "borderline resectable" was considered as positive, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (89-94%) and 5% (4-6%), respectively.
conclusionCT can be used reliably with a high inter-observer agreement in selecting candidates for surgery after neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer. KEY POINTS: • On CT following neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer, six readers showed high agreement in differentiating resectable or borderline resectable vs. unresectable cancer (Gwet's coefficient, 0.84). • Inter-observer agreement was also high for our proposed tumor response grade (Gwet's coefficient, 0.89). • Specificity was very low (5%) while sensitivity was high (91%) when either resectable or borderline resectable cancer on re-staging CT was considered as predictive of negative resection margin status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35032213What 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.