ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Early features of pancreatic cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a case-control study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeing the invisible: practical strategies to maximize the clinical impact of photon-counting CT in abdominal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic challenges of pancreatic carcinoma presenting as acute pancreatitis: A case series and literature review.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Review
- Article
- Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in the Pancreatic Parenchymal and Delayed Phases for Pancreatic Cancer.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMagnetic resonance imaging has been recommended as a primary imaging modality among high-risk individuals undergoing screening for pancreatic cancer. We aimed to delineate potential precursor lesions for pancreatic cancer on MR imaging.
methodsWe conducted a case-control study at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (2008-2018) among patients that developed pancreatic cancer who had pre-diagnostic MRI examinations obtained 2-36 months prior to cancer diagnosis (cases) matched 1:2 by age, gender, race/ethnicity, contrast status and year of scan (controls). Patients with history of acute/chronic pancreatitis or prior pancreatic surgery were excluded. Images underwent blind review with assessment of a priori defined series of parenchymal and ductal features. We performed logistic regression to assess the associations between individual factors and pancreatic cancer. We further assessed the interaction among features as well as performed a sensitivity analysis stratifying based on specific time-windows (2-3 months, 4-12 months, 13-36 months prior to cancer diagnosis).
resultsWe identified 141 cases (37.9% stage I-II, 2.1% III, 31.4% IV, 28.6% unknown) and 292 matched controls. A solid mass was noted in 24 (17%) of the pre-diagnostic MRI scans. Compared to controls, pre-diagnostic images from cancer cases more frequently exhibited the following ductal findings: main duct dilatation (51.4% vs 14.3%, OR [95% CI]: 7.75 [4.19-15.44], focal pancreatic duct stricture with distal (upstream) dilatation (43.6% vs 5.6%, OR 12.71 [6.02-30.89], irregularity (42.1% vs 6.0%, OR 9.73 [4.91-21.43]), focal pancreatic side branch dilation (13.6% vs1.6%, OR 11.57 [3.38-61.32]) as well as parenchymal features: atrophy (57.9% vs 27.4%, OR 46.4 [2.71-8.28], focal area of signal abnormality (39.3% vs 4.8%, OR 15.69 [6.72-44,78]), all p < 0.001).
conclusionIn addition to potential missed lesions, we have identified a series of ductal and parenchymal features on MRI that are associated with increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38580790What 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.