ArticleScientific reports2024
Performance of different CT enhancement quantification methods as predictors of pancreatic cancer recurrence after upfront surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound, MRI, and CT for preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis under a graded reference standard.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Preoperative CT and inflammatory index-based risk scores for predicting short-term recurrence following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- CT-based multi-regional radiomics model for predicting contrast medium extravasation in patients with tumors: A case-control study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognosis of pancreatic cancer (PDAC) after tumor resection remains poor, mostly due to a high but variable risk of recurrence. A promising tool for improved prognostication is the quantification of CT tumor enhancement. For this, various enhancement formulas have been used in previous studies. However, a systematic comparison of these formulas is lacking. In the present study, we applied twenty-three previously published CT enhancement formulas to our cohort of 92 PDAC patients who underwent upfront surgery. We identified seven formulas that could reliably predict tumor recurrence. Using these formulas, weak tumor enhancement was associated with tumor recurrence at one and two years after surgery (p ≤ 0.030). Enhancement was inversely associated with adverse clinicopathological features. Low enhancement values were predictive of a high recurrence risk (Hazard Ratio ≥ 1.659, p ≤ 0.028, Cox regression) and a short time to recurrence (TTR) (p ≤ 0.027, log-rank test). Some formulas were independent predictors of TTR in multivariate models. Strikingly, almost all of the best-performing formulas measure solely tumor tissue, suggesting that normalization to non-tumor structures might be unnecessary. Among the top performers were also the absolute arterial/portal venous tumor attenuation values. These can be easily implemented in clinical practice for better recurrence prediction, thus potentially improving patient management.
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.