ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Imaging-based diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies.
Article in European radiology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a fast-evolving malignancy, with resection being the only chance of cure. We aim to determine which imaging technique provides the best diagnostic performance in detecting and assessing the spread of PDAC. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024567008). On July 9, 2024, a systematic search was conducted in three databases, focusing on direct comparative studies that reported on patients suspected of PDAC who underwent at least two imaging methods. When available, the reference test was represented by pathological examinations, and the diagnostic performance of each diagnostic method was assessed. A bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the meta-analysis.
resultsForty direct comparative studies were eligible for meta-analysis. CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) had no significant differences in diagnostic performance for detecting PDAC. MRI showed higher sensitivity [0.89 [0.67-0.97]) and specificity (0.91 [0.76-0.97]) compared to CT (sensitivity 0.60 (CI: 0.44-0.74) and specificity 0.84 [CI: 0.70-0.93]) in distinguishing liver metastases. CT outperformed MRI for vascular invasion assessment. For lymph node detection, EUS proved to have higher sensitivity than CT or FDG-PET/CT. CT had a higher specificity (0.88 [CI: 0.76-0.94]) compared to MRI (0.63 [CI: 0.48-0.76]) when assessing resectability.
conclusionMRI has a higher pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting liver metastases of PDAC compared to CT, while the specificity of CT proves to be higher than that of MRI for assessing resectability. KEY POINTS: QuestionGiven the pancreatic cancer's tight therapeutic window and the need for precise diagnosis, we aim to determine how to best assess it with imaging techniques. FindingsMRI has a significantly higher pooled sensitivity for liver metastases detection than CT. CT has a significantly higher pooled sensitivity for vascular invasion and specificity for resectability assessment than MRI. Clinical relevanceA liver MRI may provide additional value before potentially curative surgery to rule out small metastases. CT should be performed to search for additional metastatic sites and exclude non-resectable cases. Both imaging techniques provide valuable information for assessing pancreatic cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42821086What 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.