ArticleCureus2024
Treatment and Prognosis for Pancreatic Duct Disruption Associated With Pancreatic Cancer: A Case Series of 15 Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Pancreatic duct (PD) disruption can occasionally be attributed to pancreatic cancer. Therapeutic interventions for PD disruption due to pancreatic cancer and their influence on pancreatic cancer prognosis remain unclear. This study investigated the therapeutic modalities and prognostic implications of PD disruption in pancreatic cancer. Methods This retrospective study included 15 patients with PD disruption concomitant with pancreatic cancer between April 2011 and March 2023. As an endoscopic intervention for PD disruption, endoscopic pancreatic stenting (EPS) or endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage (EUS-PFD) was performed. Technical success was defined as stent placement and clinical success was defined as an improvement in PD disruption. Results Of the 15 cases of PD disruption, two involved only pancreatic juice leakage without symptoms, four involved pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC) without infection, and nine involved PPC with infection. Four patients underwent EPS, nine underwent EUS-PFD, and two underwent lumen-apposing metal stent placement. All patients achieved both technical and clinical success without complications. The clinical stage of pancreatic cancer ranged from carcinoma in situ to the metastatic phase. For the treatment of pancreatic cancer, five patients underwent surgical resection, and eight underwent chemotherapy. There was no obvious recurrence of peritoneal sowing. The median overall survival from the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in the resected and non-resected cases was 74 and 9.6 months, respectively. Conclusion Endoscopic intervention was effective in all cases of PD disruption due to pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, even in cases of pancreatic cancer after PD disruption, survival rates were similar to those in cases without PD disruption and were achieved through surgical resection or chemotherapy.
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.