Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictive Value of Localized Stenosis of the Main Pancreatic Duct for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer

Open access
Kanno, Yoshihide, Koshita, Shinsuke, Ogawa, Takahisa, Kusunose, Hiroaki, Masu, Kaori, Sakai, Toshitaka, Yonamine, Keisuke, Kawakami, Yujiro, Fujii, Yuki, Miyamoto, Kazuaki, Murabayashi, Toji, Kozakai, Fumisato, Horaguchi, Jun, Noda, Yutaka, Oikawa, Masaya, Okada, Takaho, Ito, Kei·2019·Clinical Endoscopy
DOI 10.5946/ce.2019.018PMC PMC6900300
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the predictive value of localized stenosis of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) for early detection of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Among 689 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography from January 2008 to September 2018, 19 patients with MPD findings were enrolled. These patients showed findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage (FiCE); FiCE was defined as a single, localized stenosis in the MPD without a detectable mass (using any other imaging methods) and without other pancreatic diseases, such as definite chronic pancreatitis, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and autoimmune pancreatitis. Final diagnoses were established by examining resected specimens or through follow-up examinations after an interval of >5 years. RESULTS: Among 19 patients with FiCE, 11 underwent surgical resection and 8 were evaluated after a >5-year observation period. The final diagnosis of the MPD stenosis was judged to be pancreatic cancer in 9 patients (47%), including 3 with intraepithelial cancer, and to be a non-neoplastic change in 10. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of preoperative pancreatic juice cytology were 75%, 100%, and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The predictive value of FiCE for pancreatic cancer prevalence was 47%. Histological confirmation with pancreatic juice cytology is necessary before surgical resection.

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 · 10.5946/ce.2019.018

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Study flow chart. AIP, autoimmune pancreatitis; CT, computed tomography; ERP, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography; FiCE, findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms; MPD, main pancreatic duct; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Fig. 1. Study flow chart. AIP, autoimmune pancreatitis; CT, computed tomography; ERP, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography; FiCE, findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms; MPD, main pancreatic duct; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in patients diagnosed with malignant main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis with (findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage) without masses that are detectable via other imaging examinations. (A-I) show cases #1–#9 (Table 2) in a sequential order. (B, E, F) (Cases #2, #5, and #6, respectively) were obtained after a catheter was advanced into the tail side of the MPD along a guidewire, although contrast was not injected into the tail side as the catheter could not be advanced beyond the stenosis. Arrowheads indicate stenosis of the MPD.
Fig. 2. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in patients diagnosed with malignant main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis with (findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage) without masses that are detectable via other imaging examinations. (A-I) show cases #1–#9 (Table 2) in a sequential order. (B, E, F) (Cases #2, #5, and #6, respectively) were obtained after a catheter was advanced into the tail side of the MPD along a guidewire, although contrast was not injected into the tail side as the catheter could not be advanced beyond the stenosis. Arrowheads indicate stenosis of the MPD.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients diagnosed with benign main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis with (findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage) without masses that are detectable via other imaging examinations. (A-I) show Cases #10–#18 (Table 2) in a sequential order. Because neither contrast nor a catheter could be advanced to the tail side of the MPD in Case #12, MRCP is additionally shown to show tail-side pancreatography (C). (B, D, J) (Cases #11, #13, and #17, respectively) were obtained after a catheter was advanced into the tail side of the MPD along a guidewire, although contrast was not injected into the tail side before the catheter was advanced beyond the stenosis.
Fig. 3. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients diagnosed with benign main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis with (findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage) without masses that are detectable via other imaging examinations. (A-I) show Cases #10–#18 (Table 2) in a sequential order. Because neither contrast nor a catheter could be advanced to the tail side of the MPD in Case #12, MRCP is additionally shown to show tail-side pancreatography (C). (B, D, J) (Cases #11, #13, and #17, respectively) were obtained after a catheter was advanced into the tail side of the MPD along a guidewire, although contrast was not injected into the tail side before the catheter was advanced beyond the stenosis.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. Cancer invasion, with the invasive region being 27 mm in size (Case #9 in Table 2). (A) Mapping through divided faces; (B) Mapping through cutting lines; (C) Microscopic examination of hematoxylin-eosin-stained specimen (×10) showing a whitish, hard region, indicating that invasive cancer was not identified macroscopically on the divided faces. Microscopic evaluation shows that the invasive region (red color) was not round, dense, or well-demarcated, possibly due to the difficulty in detection during imaging examinations. The invasive region is indicated in red and the high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia is indicated in yellow. The white box in (A) indicates the location of (C). The blue arrow indicates the main pancreatic duct near the stenosis.
Fig. 4. Cancer invasion, with the invasive region being 27 mm in size (Case #9 in Table 2). (A) Mapping through divided faces; (B) Mapping through cutting lines; (C) Microscopic examination of hematoxylin-eosin-stained specimen (×10) showing a whitish, hard region, indicating that invasive cancer was not identified macroscopically on the divided faces. Microscopic evaluation shows that the invasive region (red color) was not round, dense, or well-demarcated, possibly due to the difficulty in detection during imaging examinations. The invasive region is indicated in red and the high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia is indicated in yellow. The white box in (A) indicates the location of (C). The blue arrow indicates the main pancreatic duct near the stenosis.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. c2018, Cancer statistics in Japan; Table download [Internet]

Cited by

See all 24

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kanno, Y., Koshita, S., Ogawa, T., Kusunose, H., Masu, K., Sakai, T., Yonamine, K., Kawakami, Y., Fujii, Y., Miyamoto, K., Murabayashi, T., Kozakai, F., Horaguchi, J., Noda, Y., Oikawa, M., Okada, T., & Ito, K.
Affiliations
Sendai Medical Center (JP)
Corresponding author
Kanno, Yoshihide
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Endoscopy
Publisher
The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Published
2019-11-30
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
588-597
ISSN
  • 2234-2400 (ISSN-L)
  • 2234-2443
DOI
10.5946/ce.2019.018
PMC
PMC6900300
OpenAlex
W2991140622
Cited by
23
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Endoscopy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, early detection, main pancreatic duct stenosis, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, pancreatic juice cytology, diagnostic accuracy, surgical resection

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: Predictive Value of Localized Stenosis of the Main Pancreatic Duct for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5946/ce.2019.018
The paper
Kanno, Y., Koshita, S., Ogawa, T., Kusunose, H., Masu, K., Sakai, T., Yonamine, K., Kawakami, Y., Fujii, Y., Miyamoto, K., Murabayashi, T., Kozakai, F., Horaguchi, J., Noda, Y., Oikawa, M., Okada, T., & Ito, K. (2019). Predictive Value of Localized Stenosis of the Main Pancreatic Duct for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer. Clinical Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.018

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.