ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Incidental pancreatic cystic lesions: retrospective analysis of natural history and efficacy of imaging surveillance guidelines.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the natural history of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) and the sensitivity of surveillance guidelines to detect malignancy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a single-center retrospective analysis of incidental PCLs discovered between 2012 and 2017. Patients were identified by searching radiology reports for relevant keywords, then search results were manually reviewed to exclude patients with < 5 years of follow-up, non-incidental PCLs, known pancreatic cancer, or pancreatitis. Baseline and follow-up imaging was reviewed to record size, growth (as defined by the American College of Radiology (ACR)), high-risk stigmata, and incidence of malignancy. Four major guidelines (International Consensus, European, ACR, and Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR)) were retrospectively applied to assess sensitivity to detect invasive disease. Benign and malignant PCL outcomes were compared (Fisher's exact test), and PCL growth was modeled (mixed-effects regression).
resultsFour hundred and forty-nine patients (67 ± 12 years, 284 women) with 556 PCLs were included. PCL natural growth was 0.33 mm/year (0.26-0.40 mm 95% CI), which overlaps with significant growth thresholds for ACR and CAR guidelines. Nine patients over 21,996 patient-years of follow-up developed pancreatic cancer (4.1 cases/10,000 patient-years). Malignancy was not associated with significant growth (4/9 vs 107/547, p = 0.084) but was with high-risk stigmata (3/9 vs 3/547, p < 0.001). Guideline sensitivities ranged from 33.3 to 66.7% (2-4/6 cases).
conclusionPCLs are common, overwhelmingly benign, and grow slowly. Development of high-risk stigmata is associated with malignancy but not "significant growth," which can overlap with natural PCL growth. Despite differences in recommended duration and frequency of follow-up, surveillance guidelines still miss 1/3-2/3 of cancers. KEY POINTS: Question There is limited evidence on the natural growth and malignant potential of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. Findings Incidental pancreatic cystic lesions grew slowly (0.3 mm/year) and were uncommonly malignant (2%). Retrospective application of surveillance guidelines missed 1/3-2/3 of cancers. Clinical relevance Radiologists and imaging surveillance guidelines should account for the natural growth of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. Given the low rate of malignancy, high proportion of missed cancers, and risk of overtreatment, the effectiveness of imaging surveillance guidelines remains unclear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39706924What 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.