Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas in Long-Term Follow-Up Patients With Branch Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

Open access
Tanno, Satoshi, Nakano, Yasuhiro, Koizumi, Kazuya, Sugiyama, Yoshiaki, Nakamura, Kazumasa, Sasajima, Junpei, Nishikawa, Tomoya, Mizukami, Yusuke, Yanagawa, Nobuyuki, Fujii, Tsuneshi, Okumura, Toshikatsu, Obara, Takeshi, Kohgo, Yutaka·2010·Pancreas

Abstract

Objective: Although branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) are slow-growing tumors with a favorable prognosis, the synchronous occurrence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAs) in patients with BD-IPMNs has been reported. This study was aimed to elucidate the development of PDAs in long-term follow-up patients with BD-IPMNs. Methods: We investigated 89 BD-IPMN patients who had no mural nodules and followed them up conservatively at least 2 years (median follow-up, 64 months; range, 25-158 months). All subjects underwent examinations by imaging modalities including endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. We calculated the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) from the vital statistics compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan. Results: Among the 89 patients, 4 cases of PDAs distant from BD-IPMN were observed in 552 patient-years of follow-up (7.2 per 1000 patient-years). The expected number was 0.25, and the SIR of PDAs was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-40.4; P = 0.00014). Subgroup analyses showed that the incidence of PDAs was significantly increased in patients 70 years or older (SIR 16.7; 95% CI, 3.4-48.7; P = 0.0008) and in women (SIR 22.5; 95% CI, 2.7-81.1; P = 0.0037). Conclusions: Patients with BD-IPMNs are at a high risk for PDAs. During the follow-up, careful examination is required to detect the development of PDAs in patients with BD-IPMNs. Abbreviations: IPMN - intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, PDA - pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, ERCP - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, MRCP - magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, EUS - endoscopic ultrasonography, CT - computed tomography, SIR - standardized incidence ratio

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpa.0b013e3181b91cd0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Tanno, S., Nakano, Y., Koizumi, K., Sugiyama, Y., Nakamura, K., Sasajima, J., Nishikawa, T., Mizukami, Y., Yanagawa, N., Fujii, T., Okumura, T., Obara, T., & Kohgo, Y.
Venue
Pancreas
Published
2010-01
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
36-40
ISSN
0885-3177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016691893
Cited by
163
References
1
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas in Long-Term Follow-Up Patients With Branch Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mpa.0b013e3181b91cd0
The paper
Tanno, S., Nakano, Y., Koizumi, K., Sugiyama, Y., Nakamura, K., Sasajima, J., Nishikawa, T., Mizukami, Y., Yanagawa, N., Fujii, T., Okumura, T., Obara, T., & Kohgo, Y. (2010). Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas in Long-Term Follow-Up Patients With Branch Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms. Pancreas. https://doi.org/10.1097/mpa.0b013e3181b91cd0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.