Cited by 185Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchMRI in cancer diagnosisPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

A multicentre comparative prospective blinded analysis of EUS and MRI for screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals

Open access
Harinck, F, Konings, I C A W, Kluijt, I, Poley, J W, van Hooft, J E, van Dullemen, H M, Nio, C Y, Krak, N C +10 more·2016·Gut

Abstract

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI are promising tests to detect precursors and early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in high-risk individuals (HRIs). It is unclear which screening technique is to be preferred. We aimed to compare the efficacy of EUS and MRI in their ability to detect clinically relevant lesions in HRI. Design: Multicentre prospective study. The results of 139 asymptomatic HRI (>10-fold increased risk) undergoing first-time screening by EUS and MRI are described. Clinically relevant lesions were defined as solid lesions, main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and cysts ≥10 mm. Results were compared in a blinded, independent fashion. Results: Two solid lesions (mean size 9 mm) and nine cysts ≥10 mm (mean size 17 mm) were detected in nine HRI (6%). Both solid lesions were detected by EUS only and proved to be a stage I PDAC and a multifocal pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia 2. Of the nine cysts ≥10 mm, six were detected by both imaging techniques and three were detected by MRI only. The agreement between EUS and MRI for the detection of clinically relevant lesions was 55%. Of these clinically relevant lesions detected by both techniques, there was a good agreement for location and size. Conclusions: EUS and/or MRI detected clinically relevant pancreatic lesions in 6% of HRI. Both imaging techniques were complementary rather than interchangeable: contrary to EUS, MRI was found to be very sensitive for the detection of cystic lesions of any size; MRI, however, might have some important limitations with regard to the timely detection of solid lesions.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308008

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harinck, F., Konings, I. C. A. W., Kluijt, I., Poley, J. W., van Hooft, J. E., van Dullemen, H. M., Nio, C. Y., Krak, N. C., Hermans, J. J., Aalfs, C. M., Wagner, A., Sijmons, R. H., Biermann, K., van Eijck, C. H., Gouma, D. J., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., Fockens, P., & Bruno, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Medical Center, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Harinck, F
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-05-18
Volume
65
Issue
9
Pages
1505-1513
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W1907808487
Cited by
185
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 3
FWCI
7.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw (120520016)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
pancreatic cancer screening, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, high-risk individuals, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, pancreatic cysts, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, solid pancreatic lesions, diagnostic agreement, early cancer detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Pancreas, Pancreatic Cyst, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Endosonography, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Early Detection of Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness Research, 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