Cited by 36Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Cytologic analysis of pancreatic juice increases specificity of detection of malignant IPMN—a systematic review

Tanaka, Masayuki, Heckler, Max, Liu, Bing, Heger, Ulrike, Hackert, Thilo, Michalski, Christoph W.·2019·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background & aims Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the pancreas can progress to cancer. Biomarkers have been identified that were reported to increase the accuracy of identification of malignant lesions; we performed a systematic review of the accuracy of these markers. Methods We performed a systematic review of published studies on biomarkers of malignant IPMNs by searching MEDLINE and Web of Science databases from January 2005 through December 2017. Our methods were developed based on the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curves, and their respective areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated from groups of markers (cell-, protein-, or DNA-based) measured in samples collected before and after surgery. A hypothetical test model was developed to determine how to meaningfully amend the revised Fukuoka guidelines, focusing on increasing test specificity for patients with IPMNs that have worrisome features. Results We collected data from 193 published studies, comprising 12,297 patients, that analyzed 7 preoperative and 21 postoperative markers of IPMNs. The 3 biomarkers that identified malignant IPMNs with the largest AUC values were pancreatic juice cytology (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 0.54; specificity, 0.91), serum protein carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (AUC, 0.81; sensitivity, 0.45; specificity, 0.90), and cyst fluid cytology (AUC, 0.82; sensitivity, 0.57; specif…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.034

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 119 · Cited by 36

Authors
Tanaka, M., Heckler, M., Liu, B., Heger, U., Hackert, T., & Michalski, C. W.
Affiliations
Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Hackert, Thilo
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
2199-2211.e21
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2908606368
Cited by
36
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ernst Freiberger Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, pancreatic juice cytology, pancreatic cancer detection, biomarkers, CA19-9, cyst fluid cytology, MUC1, MUC2, immunohistochemistry, diagnostic specificity, preoperative diagnosis
MeSH terms
Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms, Humans, Pancreas, Pancreatic Juice, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Tumor, Reproducibility of Results, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal

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