Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35163571›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Diagnostic Performance of Pancreatic Cytology with the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System: A Systematic Review, before Shifting into the Upcoming WHO International System.

Ilias P Nikas, Tanja Proctor, Svenja Seide, Stylianos S Chatziioannou, Jordan P Reynolds, Dimitrios Ntourakis

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ilias P NikasSchool of Medicine, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 2404, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0001-8625-2556
Tanja ProctorInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Svenja SeideInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-7373
Stylianos S ChatziioannouSchool of Medicine, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 2404, Cyprus.
Jordan P ReynoldsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32256, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7455-6122
Dimitrios NtourakisSchool of Medicine, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 2404, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0002-2831-6168
European University Cyprus · CYHeidelberg University · DEMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) reporting system classifies pancreatobiliary samples into six categories (I-VI), providing guidance for personalized management. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has been preparing an updated reporting system for pancreatobiliary cytopathology, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the risk of malignancy (ROM) of each PSC category, also the sensitivity and specificity of pancreatic FNA cytology using the current PSC system. Five databases were investigated with a predefined search algorithm. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select the eligible studies for subsequent data extraction. A study quality assessment was also performed. Eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis. The ROM of the PSC categories I, II, III, IV, V, VI were in the ranges of 8-50%, 0-40%, 28-100%, 0-31%, 82-100%, and 97-100%, respectively. Notably, the ROM IVB ("neoplastic-benign") subcategory showed a 0% ROM. Four of the included studies reported separately the ROMs for the IVO subcategory ("neoplastic-other"; its overall ROM ranged from 0 to 34%) with low (LGA) and high-grade atypia (HGA). ROM for LGA ranged from 4.3 to 19%, whereas ROM for HGA from 64 to 95.2%. When the subcategory IVO with HGA was considered as cytologically positive, together with the categories V and VI, there was a higher sensitivity of pancreatic cytology, at minimal expense of the specificity. Evidence suggests the proposed WHO international system changes-shifting the IVB entities into the "benign/negative for malignancy" category and establishing two new categories, the "pancreatic neoplasm, low-risk/grade" and "pancreatic neoplasm, high-risk/grade"-could stratify pancreatic neoplasms more effectively than the current PSC system.

Indexed as

CytodiagnosisSocieties, MedicalHumansNeoplasm GradingPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentWorld Health Organizationcancerdiagnosisendoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA)immunohistochemistrymolecularneuroendocrine tumorspancreaspancreatic intraductal neoplasmspathologysensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID35163571
PMCPMC8835850
OpenAlexW4210255905

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.