Cited by 105Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentMRI in cancer diagnosis

Indicative findings of pancreatic cancer in prediagnostic CT

Open access
Ahn, Sung Soo, Kim, Myeong-Jin, Choi, Jin-Young, Hong, Hye-Suk, Chung, Yong Eun, Lim, Joon Seok·2009·European Radiology

Abstract

We examined 20 prediagnostic CTs from 16 patients for whom the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was delayed until full diagnostic CT was performed. Three radiologists independently reviewed the prediagnostic CTs along with 50 CTs of control subjects, including patients without pancreatic disease (n = 38) or with chronic pancreatitis without calcification visible on CT (n = 12). The reviewers recorded the presence of biliary or pancreatic ductal dilation, interruption of the pancreatic duct, distal parenchymal atrophy, contour abnormality and focal hypoattenuation. Frequency, sensitivity and specificity of the significant findings were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed. Findings indicative of pancreatic cancer were seen on 85% (17/20) of the prediagnostic CTs. Patients with pancreatic cancer were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to show focal hypoattenuation, pancreatic duct dilation, interruption of the pancreatic duct, and distal parenchymal atrophy, with sensitivities and specificities of 75%/84%, 50%/78%, 45%/82% and 45%/96%, respectively. Focal hypoattenuation and distal parenchymal atrophy were the independent predictors of pancreatic cancer with odds ratios of 20.92 and 11.22, respectively. In conclusion, focal hypoattenuation and pancreatic duct dilation with or without interruption, especially when accompanied by distal parenchymal atrophy, were the most useful findings for avoiding delayed diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-009-1422-6

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahn, S. S., Kim, M.-J., Choi, J.-Y., Hong, H.-S., Chung, Y. E., & Lim, J. S.
Affiliations
Yonsei University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Myeong-Jin
Venue
European Radiology
Published
2009-05-05
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
2448-2455
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
OpenAlex
W2108632649
Cited by
105
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, delayed diagnosis, pancreatic duct dilatation, chronic pancreatitis, diagnostic accuracy, early detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Pancreatitis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Early Diagnosis, Delayed Diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review