ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Peroral Pancreatoscopy for Differentiating Main Duct IPMN from Chronic Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review and a Case Series.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilatation may occur in both main-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). In selected patients, MRI/MRCP, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and contrast-enhanced EUS may remain inconclusive. Peroral pancreatoscopy (POPS) permits direct ductal inspection and targeted biopsy, but the available evidence is heterogeneous and does not establish diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility in the specific differential diagnosis of MD-IPMN versus CP. We performed a narrative review of POPS for suspected pancreatic duct neoplasia and report a retrospective, descriptive, single-center series of five highly selected patients evaluated between January 2023 and November 2024. The case series is presented only to illustrate a multidisciplinary diagnostic pathway; no estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or clinical benefit were calculated. All five patients had MPD dilatation > 10 mm, imaging findings compatible with definite or possible chronic pancreatitis, and persistent concern for MD-IPMN after MRI/MRCP, EUS, and contrast-enhanced EUS. POPS-guided biopsies showed low-grade dysplasia in one patient and high-grade dysplasia in two patients. These three patients underwent surgery, and examination of the resection specimens confirmed the same dysplasia categories identified by POPS-guided biopsy. In the remaining two patients, POPS showed regular-appearing ductal epithelium with focal hyperemia, and targeted biopsies revealed nonspecific inflammatory changes. These patients were managed conservatively without surgery. As definitive surgical histopathology was not available, their final diagnostic status remained unconfirmed. Both patients underwent ongoing planned annual surveillance with MRI or EUS and serum CA 19-9 measurement to identify any morphological or biochemical changes. At the most recent follow-up, approximately 192 days (IQR, 116.5-205.5 days) after POPS, no significant changes had been observed. This small, selected series illustrates how POPS may contribute additional visual and histological information when conventional evaluation is discordant. It cannot demonstrate that POPS prevents missed lesions, excludes IPMN, reduces unnecessary surgery, or improves outcomes. Prospective multicenter studies with predefined referral criteria, blinded interpretation, complete reference standards, and long-term follow-up are needed.
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.