↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011515.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico Tamburrino, Deniece Riviere, Mohammad Yaghoobi, Brian R Davidson, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy

Abstract

Periampullary cancer includes cancer of the head and neck of the pancreas, cancer of the distal end of the bile duct, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, and cancer of the second part of the duodenum. Surgical resection is the only established potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Other imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), PET-CT, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have been used to detect local invasion or distant metastases not visualised on CT scanning which could prevent unnecessary laparotomy. No systematic review or meta-analysis has examined the role of different imaging modalities in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, PET scan, and EUS performed as an add-on test or PET-CT as a replacement test to CT scanning in detecting curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to 5 November 2015. Two review authors independently screened the references and selected the studies for inclusion. We also searched for articles related to the included studies by performing the "related search" function in MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) and a "citing reference" search (by searching the articles that cite the included articles). We included diagnostic accuracy studies of MRI, PET scan, PET-CT, and EUS in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies - 2) tool. Although we planned to use bivariate methods for analysis of sensitivities and specificities, we were able to fit only the univariate fixed-effect models for both sensitivity and specificity because of the paucity of data. We calculated the probability of unresectability in patients who had a positive index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) and in those with negative index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) using the mean probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the positive and negative likelihood ratios derived from the model. The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of the index test compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone. Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer. Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer.There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Unknown 146 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Other 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Unspecified 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 41 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,357,980
of 21,353,399 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,528
of 12,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,935
of 241,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,353,399 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.