Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35760922›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022

Vascular involvement and resectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with pancreatic protocol CT.

Yoshifumi Noda, Nobuyuki Kawai, Tetsuro Kaga, Takuma Ishihara, Fuminori Hyodo, Hiroki Kato, Avinash R Kambadakone, Masayuki Matsuo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Diffusion-weighted Echo Planar Imaging with Compressed SENSE (EPICS-DWI) for Pancreas Assessment: A Multicenter Study.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors.

Yoshifumi NodaDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan. noda1031@gifu-u.ac.jp.
Nobuyuki KawaiDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Tetsuro KagaDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Takuma IshiharaInnovative and Clinical Research Promotion Center, Gifu University Hospital, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Fuminori HyodoInstitute for Advanced Study, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Hiroki KatoDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Avinash R KambadakoneDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Masayuki MatsuoDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance for detecting vascular involvement and determining resectability differences regarding pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between contrast-enhanced CT and MRI.

methodsThis retrospective study evaluated 82 patients (73 years, 46 men) with PDAC who underwent both preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and MRI from January 2008 to March 2021. Two radiologists independently categorized vascular involvements for celiac, superior mesenteric, splenic, and common hepatic arteries, and portal, superior mesenteric, and splenic veins into no tumor contact, solid soft-tissue contact ≤ 180°, or solid soft-tissue contact > 180°. The radiologists also classified resectability into resectable, borderline resectable, or locally advanced. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performances for detecting vascular involvements which were confirmed by pathological or intraoperative findings. The proportion of resectability classifications was compared between CT and MRI by the Fisher's exact test.

resultsNo statistical difference was found in the diagnostic performances for detecting vascular involvement in CT (area under the ROC curve [AUC], 0.50-0.89) and MRI (AUC, 0.51-0.75) (P = 0.06-> 0.99). Resectability on CT were 79% and 68%, 20% and 26%, and 1% and 6% for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced tumors for reviewers 1 and 2; those on MRI were 87% and 81%, 12% and 13%, and 1% and 6%, respectively. The proportion of resectability classifications was not different between CT and MRI (P = 0.48 and = 0.15 for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively).

conclusionThe diagnostic performance for detecting vascular involvement and determining resectability of PDAC on contrast-enhanced MRI were comparable with pancreatic protocol CT.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalPancreatic NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedMagnetic resonance imagingMultidetector computed tomographyPancreas

Identifiers

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.