Cited by 223Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Prevalence of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic lesions in asymptomatic individuals

Zerboni, Giulia, Signoretti, Marianna, Crippa, Stefano, Falconi, Massimo, Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio, Capurso, Gabriele·2019·Pancreatology

Abstract

Background & aims Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings. As most PCLs require costly diagnostic evaluation and active surveillance, it is important to clarify their prevalence in asymptomatic individuals. We therefore aimed at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine it.Methods a systematic search was conducted and studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The prevalence of PCLs was pooled across studies. A random effect model was used with assessment of heterogeneity.Results 17 studies, with 48,860 patients, were included. Only 3 were prospective; 5 studies were conducted in the US, 7 in Europe, 4 in Asia and 1 in Brazil. The pooled prevalence of PCLs was 8% (95% CI 4-14) with considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 99.5%). This prevalence was higher in studies of higher quality, examining older subjects, smaller cohorts, and employing MRCP (24.8% vs 2.7% with CT-scan). The pooled rate of PCLs was four times higher in studies conducted in the US than in Asia (12.6% vs 3.1%). 7 studies reported the prevalence of mucinous lesions, with a pooled rate of 4.3% (95% CI 2-10; I 2 = 99.2%), but of 0.7% only for worrisome features or high risk stigmata.Conclusion The rate of incidentally detected PCLs is of 8%. Mucinous lesions are the most common incidentally detected PCLs, although they rarely present with potential indication for surgery. The observed different rates in the US and other geographic Areas suggest that different protocols might be necessary to help balancing costs and effectiveness of follow-up investigations in asymptomatic subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pan.2018.11.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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
Zerboni, G., Signoretti, M., Crippa, S., Falconi, M., Arcidiacono, P. G., & Capurso, G.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea (IT)
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
Corresponding author
Capurso, Gabriele
Venue
Pancreatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
2-9
ISSN
1424-3903 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2424248388
Cited by
223
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 8
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pancreatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Keywords
pancreatic cysts, incidental finding, prevalence, asymptomatic individuals, mucinous pancreatic cysts, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography, active surveillance, regional variation
MeSH terms
Humans, Pancreatic Cyst, Global Health, Prevalence, Incidental Findings

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