Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41649782›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2026

Evaluating the Influence of a Risk Calculator on Physician Risk Perception and Decision-Making in IPMN Surveillance: A Randomized Trial.

Greg D Sacks, Ida J Korfage, James Farrell, Djuna L Cahen, Tamas A Gonda

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Greg D SacksDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, NYU-Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. greg.sacks@nyulangone.org.
Ida J KorfageErasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
James FarrellDepartment of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Djuna L CahenErasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Tamas A GondaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, NYU-Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Optimizing surgical decision-making for premalignant pancreatic cystsK08CA293277 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Greg Sacks · 2025 to 2026
$516k
NIH HHS K08CA293277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk calculators (RCs) support clinicians estimating the likelihood that a pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) would progress so that surveillance might be discontinued for low-risk lesions. We tested the effect of an RC on clinicians' judgment and decision-making and identified their cancer risk threshold for changing their decision. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe presented clinicians with three vignettes (V1, V2, and V3) of patients with low-risk IPMNs and asked them to assess the likelihood that the IPMN would progress to develop high-risk features and whether they would recommend continuing surveillance imaging. Clinicians were randomly assigned to the clinical vignettes alone (n = 35) or supplemented by data from the Dutch-American Risk Stratification Tool (DART-1 RC: n = 37). We compared clinicians' judgments and decisions between groups and assessed their cancer risk threshold (level of risk at which recommendation would change).

resultsAcross all vignettes, the RC resulted in no change in clinicians' judged likelihood of IPMN progression (V1 8.49 vs. 8.41%, p = 0.09; V2 4.39 vs. 6.75%, p = 0.99; V3 13.61 vs. 13.29%, p = 0.27) or recommendation to continue surveillance (V1 57 vs. 41%, p = 0.78; V2 41 vs. 59%, p = 0.55; V3 66 vs. 34%, p = 0.31). Clinicians varied in their reported risk threshold (V1 9%, interquartile range [IQR] 2, 13%; V2 9% [IQR 1, 15%], V3 8% [IQR 3, 20%]).

conclusionsAn RC did not significantly influence clinicians' risk perception or decision to continue surveillance, although the study was limited by low sample size. The cancer risk threshold at which clinicians would change their recommendation varies widely. Future work is needed to understand why RCs do not appear to alter decision-making.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingPancreatic Intraductal NeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsPhysiciansAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPrognosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.