ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Evaluation of cystic neoplasms using EUS, MRI, and CT scan and treatment strategy.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cystic neoplasms, and pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) in general, are increasingly a practice dilemma in diagnosis with their increasing incidental discovery and indeterminate risk of malignancy. Characterization is needed to maximize patient outcomes, balancing the risks of overtreatment against the risks of missed malignancy. In this review, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) diagnostic performance, prognostic information, and clinical utility have been extensively reviewed in the imaging and treatment of cystic neoplasms, and most importantly pancreatic neoplasms. Methods: We performed narrative review synthesis and comparative analysis of MRI, EUS, and CT technology, including technical principles, diagnostic accuracy, safety profiles, and therapeutic decision-making roles. Focus was given to guideline-directed management approaches, risk stratification factors like mural nodules, cyst size, and main pancreatic duct dilatation, and advancing technologies such as AI-enhanced imaging and biopsy. Results: EUS was better for mural nodule and small cystic lesion detection, particularly in combination with fine-needle aspiration (FNA). MRI offered better non-invasive morphologic description of cyst shape and communication with the duct, and CT was an acceptable first detection device, but less specific to identify mucinous vs non-mucinous lesions. Multimodal imaging approaches, i.e., combination of EUS and MRI/ MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), optimized diagnostic accuracy and informed individualized treatment plans. Guideline-based analysis identified variability among large societies (AGA, IAP, and ESGE) in surgical thresholds and surveillance guidelines and underscored the need to use individualized, evidence-based decision-making. Conclusion: There is each of a unique niche in the diagnosis and management of cystic neoplasm for MRI, EUS, and CT. A multimodal imaging plan customized to lesion and patient considerations provides maximum diagnostic and treatment planning. The use of new technologies such as AI-assisted image analysis and advanced biopsy could potentially enhance risk stratification and decrease nonessential treatment. Prospective validation of the new technologies as well as standardization of imaging-guided management algorithms will be needed to better optimize outcomes.
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.