Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 409

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Preoperative Staging and Tumor Resectability Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer: Prospective Study Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Helical Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Angiography

Soriano, Antonio, Castells, Antoni, Ayuso, Carmen, Ayuso, Juan Ramón, de Caralt, Maria Teresa, Ginès, Maria Àngels, Real, Maria Isabel, Gilabert, Rosa, Quintó, Llorenç, Trilla, Antoni, Feu, Faust, Montanyà, Xavier, Fernández-Cruz, Laureano, Navarro, Salvador·2004·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of different strategies based on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), helical computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and angiography (A) in the staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with pancreatic carcinoma judged fit for laparotomy were studied by EUS, CT, MRI, and A. Results of each of the imaging techniques regarding primary tumor, locoregional extension, lymph-node involvement, vascular invasion, distant metastases, tumor TNM stage, and tumor resectability were compared with the surgical findings. Univariate, logistic regression, decision, and cost minimization analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with pancreatic cancer were included. Helical CT had the highest accuracy in assessing extent of primary tumor (73%), locoregional extension (74%), vascular invasion (83%), distant metastases (88%), tumor TNM stage (46%), and tumor resectability (83%), whereas EUS had the highest accuracy in assessing tumor size (r = 0.85) and lymph node involvement (65%). The decision analysis demonstrated that the best strategy to assess tumor resectability was based on CT or EUS as initial test, followed by the alternative technique in those potentially resectable cases. Cost minimization analysis favored the sequential strategy in which EUS was used as a confirmatory technique in those patients in whom helical CT suggested resectability of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Helical CT and EUS are the most useful individual imaging techniques in the staging of pancreatic cancer. In those cases with potentially resectable tumors a sequential approach consisting of helical CT as an initial test and EUS as a confirmatory technique seems to be the most reliable and cost minimization strategy.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04087.x

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 409

Metadata

Authors
Soriano, A., Castells, A., Ayuso, C., Ayuso, J. R., de Caralt, M. T., Ginès, M. À., Real, M. I., Gilabert, R., Quintó, L., Trilla, A., Feu, F., Montanyà, X., Fernández-Cruz, L., & Navarro, S.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2004-03
Volume
99
Issue
3
Pages
492-501
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W2115746124
Cited by
409
References
0
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Preoperative Staging and Tumor Resectability Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer: Prospective Study Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Helical Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04087.x
The paper
Soriano, A., Castells, A., Ayuso, C., Ayuso, J. R., de Caralt, M. T., Ginès, M. À., Real, M. I., Gilabert, R., Quintó, L., Trilla, A., Feu, F., Montanyà, X., Fernández-Cruz, L., & Navarro, S. (2004). Preoperative Staging and Tumor Resectability Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer: Prospective Study Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Helical Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Angiography. American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04087.x

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.