ArticleCancer treatment and research communications2025
Factors influencing the diagnostic basis in pancreatic cancer. A study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.
Article in Cancer treatment and research communications, 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSubstantial differences have been reported in risk estimates for etiologic factors of pancreatic cancer among subjects with different degrees of diagnostic certainty. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of some personal and social characteristics on the diagnostic basis in individuals with pancreatic cancer.
methodsWe analyzed 393 participants from the EPIC cohort with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and information on the basis of diagnosis. Two main groups of cases were compared: one in which microscopic confirmation (MC) was available to diagnose pancreatic cancer (including autopsy, histology, cytology or hematology), and one in which non-microscopic methods were used (biochemical, immunological or image tests, exploratory surgery, clinical observation, self-report, or death certificate).
resultsThe diagnosis of pancreatic cancer of 73% of participants was achieved through MC. While, overall, over 82% of men had MC, this figure was 65% in women (p<0.001). Subjects with MC, both men and women, were younger at diagnosis than participants diagnosed by non-microscopic methods. Younger women (<60 years) had a higher probability of having their cancer diagnosed with MC (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.04-6.17) than women ≥70 years. After the year 2000 the chances of having the disease diagnosed through MC increased more than 2-fold in women and more than 5-fold in men. No significant differences in diagnostic basis were observed by educational level, comorbidities or established risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
conclusionThe rates of MC in subjects diagnosed with pancreatic cancer continued to be relatively low. Age and sex are the two main factors that powerfully influence MC. Hence, age and sex must be considered when designing and analyzing clinical and epidemiological studies, as well as in clinical practice. The consistently lower rates of MC in female patients suggest an ingrained sex-related diagnostic bias, which may require specific policies to be counterbalanced.
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.