Cited by 27Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies

Asymptomatic pancreatic cancer: does incidental detection impact long-term outcomes?

Takeda, Yoshinori, Saiura, Akio, Takahashi, Yu, Inoue, Yosuke, Ishizawa, Takeaki, Mise, Yoshihiro, Matsumura, Masaru, Ichida, Hirofumi +3 more·2017·Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Background Detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in asymptomatic patients is very rare, and the clinical implication of early detection of asymptomatic PDAC remains unclear. Methods This retrospective study included 569 consecutive patients with PDAC treated in our institution (250 underwent surgical resection and 319 had unresectable PDAC). The patients' demographics, tumor locations, pathologic stages, treatment, and overall survival (OS) were compared between the asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Results In total, 163 (29%) patients presented without subjective symptoms. These patients had an earlier stage of PDAC on presentation (p < 0.001), higher resectability rate (64 vs. 36%, p < 0.001), and higher 5-year OS rate (18 vs. 7%, p < 0.001) than patients with symptoms. Among the patients who underwent resection, asymptomatic patients did not have a significantly higher chance of complete resection (88 vs. 78%, p = 0.06) or 5-year OS rate (23 vs. 22%, p = 0.09). However, symptomatic patients more often required complex operations such as concomitant vascular resection and reconstruction (57 vs. 29%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Asymptomatic PDAC is associated with better long-term outcomes than symptomatic PDAC because of the earlier stage at presentation and higher chance of resectability. Our findings highlight the potential implication of screening programs for early detection of PDAC in selected high-risk populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11605-017-3421-2

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 27

Authors
Takeda, Y., Saiura, A., Takahashi, Y., Inoue, Y., Ishizawa, T., Mise, Y., Matsumura, M., Ichida, H., Matsuki, R., Tanaka, M., & Ito, H.
Affiliations
The Cancer Institute Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Saiura, Akio
Venue
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
1287-1295
ISSN
1091-255X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605509002
Cited by
27
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Project for Development of Innovative Research on Cancer Therapeutics (P-Direct), and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, incidental detection, early detection, overall survival, resectability, unresectable pancreatic cancer, cancer screening, tumor stage at presentation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatectomy, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Incidental Findings, Early Detection of Cancer, Asymptomatic Diseases

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