ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Differential EUS findings in focal type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic ultrasound in differentiation of solid pancreatic head lesions: A single centre experience.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound trends of solid pancreatic lesions in Gulf Cooperation Council countries.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Role of endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis and management of autoimmune pancreatitis.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Update on Autoimmune Pancreatitis and IgG4-Related Disease.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Review
- A comprehensive review of IgG4-related pancreatitis: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapeutic advances.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound and Ancillary Techniques in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Can serum immunoglobulin G4 levels and age serve as reliable predictors of relapse in autoimmune pancreatitis?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Differentiation between Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Applications and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopic Ultrasound in Digestive System Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnostic efficacy of cytologic smear and pathologic histology in the differential diagnosis of distal biliary stricture via EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) often mimics pancreatic cancer (PC), particularly if presenting as a focal lesion. EUS may orient the differential diagnosis between them. This study aims to identify EUS findings that might be useful to differentiate type 1 focal autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP1) and PC. Materials and Methods: F-AIP1 and PC patients were retrospectively collected, matched, and compared. EUS findings considered were: focal mass echogenicity, loss of lobularity, distal atrophy, peripancreatic hypoechoic margins (PHM), pancreatic duct dilation, duct-penetrating sign (DPS), pancreatic/common bile duct thickened walls (PD/CBD-TW), and vessel infiltration (VI). Elastography findings were also recorded. Variables with a P < 0.05 at univariate analysis were included in logistic multiple regression. Results: Fifteen patients with f-AIP and 60 with PC were studied. FE was hypoechoic in all patients from both groups. PHM was observed in 40% of f-AIP1 cases but not in PC ones (P < 0.001). DPS was found in 10/15 (66.7%) f-AIP1 and in 7/60 (11.7%) PC patients (P < 0.001). PD-TW and CBD-TW were observed in 66.7%/60% f-AIP1 cases and in 6.7%/13.6% PC patients, respectively (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Pancreatic masses were significantly different at EUS elastography (elastic respectively in 71.4% f-AIP1 and 3.8% PC, P < 0.001). VI was suspected in 20% of f-AIPs and 85% of PCs (P < 0.001). At multiple regression, PD-TW, CBD-TW, elastic pattern, and the absence of VI independently supported a diagnosis of f-AIP1. Conclusions: Our results suggest that EUS findings deserve consideration in the diagnostic workup of AIP to improve the differential diagnosis with PC.
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.