MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Ablation of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Aanalysis: Presidential Poster Award

2018· review· en· W2921617013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuel Ugbarugba, Phil A. Hart, Zobeida Cruz‐Monserrate, Darwin L. Conwell, Somashekar G. Krishna

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystPublication biasConfidence intervalMeta-analysisFunnel plotInternal medicineEndoscopic ultrasoundRadiologySurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms (PCN) are increasingly detected with enhanced imaging modalities. While surgical resection is the recommendation for mucinous cystic lesions meeting high risk or certain worrisome criteria (International Consensus Guidelines 2017), EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation (PCA) is performed as an alternative for poor surgical candidates. We sought to determine the pooled Complete Resolution (CR) rate after PCA and review associated complications. Methods: Literature search was performed using Embase and PubMed database. Relevant articles were selected based on availability of data for analysis regardless of the primary objectives. Quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Random effect model was used for all analyses. The summary measure of CR rate was defined by absence of cyst or <5% cyst volume on repeat imaging after PCA. CR was expressed in percentages of ablated cyst with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-test and I-squared. Publication bias was assessed with Egger’s regression model and Funnel plot. Results: A total of 533 subjects from 11 studies were included in the final analysis (Table 1). For “all cyst types”, combination of Ethanol and Paclitaxel had the highest CR (66.4%, 95% CI 59.5-72.6%) compared to ethanol alone (35.9%, 95% CI 23.0-51.2%). Compared to mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), Branch Duct (BD)-IPMN had lower CR after PCA with ethanol (24.1%, 95% CI 12.5-41.3%) vs. 40.2%, 95% CI 17.2-68.5%) or Ethanol with Paclitaxel (45.5%, 95% CI 20.3-73.2% vs. 58.6%, 95% CI 19.0-89.5%) (Table 2). The overall complication rate was 15.4% (95% CI 6.1-33.6%), with an acute pancreatitis (AP) rate of 4.4% (2.6-6.9%). Studies used were of moderate quality. While heterogeneity was high for “all Cyst types”, it was low for ethanol with paclitaxel subgroup. The Forest plots are show in in Figure 1. There was no evidence of publication bias by visual inspection of funnel plot and by Egger’s regression model (p=0.62).14_A Figure 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysisConclusion: EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation appears to be a safe and feasible management option for PCNs in select patients; however, BD-IPMN, which is the commonest form of mucinous cyst, has relatively low rates of complete resolution. Further application of other chemotherapeutic drug combinations and novel drug delivery mechanisms need to be explored.14_B Figure 2. Meta-analysis of Cyst Resolution (CR) in “All Cyst Types”. CR is expressed here in decimals.14_C Figure 3. Summary of Outcome of Pancreatic Cyst Ablation Using Different Ablative Agents

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.020
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→