ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Rethinking imaging-based IPMN subtype classification: is mixed-type a necessary radiologic category?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate radiology-pathology concordance and interobserver agreement of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) subtype classification, and to determine whether categorical subtype classification adds value for malignancy risk stratification beyond main pancreatic duct (MPD) features.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, 144 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection of an IPMN between 2005 and 2025 and had preoperative CT or MRI within 6 months of surgery were included. Images were independently reviewed by two blinded radiologists, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Adjudicated radiologic subtype classification was used for radiology-pathology concordance, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses; interobserver agreement was assessed using the independent reader interpretations. Logistic regression and ROC analyses identified predictors of malignancy.
resultsOverall radiology-pathology concordance under the radiologic classification was 60.4% (87/144). Among pathologic mixed-type IPMNs, 60.3% (38/63) were classified as branch-duct IPMNs on imaging. Interobserver agreement was moderate for radiologic subtype (κ = 0.509) but excellent for MPD diameter (ICC = 0.909). On multivariable analysis, MPD diameter independently predicted malignancy (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; p = .001), whereas radiologic subtype was not. MPD diameter outperformed radiologic subtype for discrimination of malignancy (AUC, 0.737 vs. 0.624; p = .001). Adding radiologic subtype to MPD diameter provided no incremental discriminative value for malignancy (AUC, 0.739 vs. 0.737; p = .61).
conclusionRadiologic IPMN subtype classification demonstrated only modest concordance with pathology and moderate interobserver agreement. MPD diameter demonstrated higher interobserver agreement and superior discrimination for IPMN malignancy risk stratification. These findings suggest that the mixed-type IPMN subtype may not be necessary as a distinct category for malignancy risk stratification, and that greater emphasis on objective MPD measurement may provide a more reproducible and clinically informative approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560493What 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.