SynthesisBJS open2026
Implications and risk of new versus persisting intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms after pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterpretation of recurrence following resection of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) is hindered by inconsistent terminology and outcome reporting. A distinction between metachronous/de novo IPMN development, progression of residual disease, and true recurrence of invasive entities is rarely considered.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines (PROSPERO-ID: 1009399). The primary endpoint was postoperative recurrence of non-invasive IPMN and IPMN-derived pancreatic cancer (PC). Recurrence following resection of non-invasive IPMN was reclassified as progression of persistent cysts or de novo metachronous IPMN. Secondary endpoints comprised risk-factors for recurrence.
resultsSixty-six articles with 11 464 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 26 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 18.0-53.0) to 72 (i.q.r. 5-318) months, the recurrence rate of IPMN-derived PC was 41.9% (1646/3925 patients), with a 5-year pooled recurrence-free survival of 46.6%. Systemic recurrence was most common (1034/1646; 62.8%), followed by locoregional (430/1646; 26.1%). Secondary treatments were administered in 655/1646 patients (39.8%) presenting with recurrence and included chemotherapy (65.5%), surgery (22.1%) and radiation (5.8%). Lymph node involvement (hazard ratio 2.87, 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 5.43) and tubular subtype (hazard ratio 1.68, 1.16 to 2.43) were identified as independent predictors of recurrence-free survival. The overall recurrence rate following pancreatic resection of non-invasive IPMN was 11.2% (831/7446), after median follow-up of 28 (i.q.r. 1-153) to 114 (i.q.r. 12-204) months. Among these, 408 (49.1%) developed as de novo lesions in the remnant pancreas and 174 (20.9%) as progression of pre-existing cyst detected at the time of index surgery; the remaining 249 patients (30.0%) could not be reclassified. Non-invasive recurrence was more common (308; 37.1%) than IPMN-derived PC (118; 14.2%), whereas the type of recurrence was unspecified in 405 patients (48.7%). Secondary treatment data were available for 265 patients, of whom 131 (49.4%) underwent reoperation.
conclusionThe recurrence rate of IPMN-derived PC is high and warrants close surveillance policies. The majority of 'recurring' non-invasive IPMNs are de novo lesions. Standardized reporting, distinguishing true recurrence from de novo development and progression of residual disease, is essential to stratify recurrence risk and optimize surveillance protocols accurately.
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.