Annals of surgery · 2025
Personalized Surveillance Intervals for Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN): Multicenter Study Using Parametric Models.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ricci Claudio, Crippa Stefano, Hee Johnathan, Jung Hyesol, Capurso Gabriele, Ferronato Marco, Noia José Lariño, Gorris Myrte, Ghaneh Paula, Demir Ihsan Ekin, Ahmad Nuzhat, Heckler Max, Belfiori Giulio, Aleotti Francesca, Han Youngmin, Kwon Wooil, Lauri Gaetano, Tacelli Matteo, Busch Olivier, Mann Kulbir, Migliori Marina, Arcidiacono Paolo Giorgio, Friess Helmut, Vollmer Charles M, Hackert Thilo, Besselink Marc, Casadei Riccardo, Jang Jin-Young, Goh Brian Kim-Poh, Falconi Massimo, Marchegiani Giovanni
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to build a calculator for personalized surveillance of BD-IPMNs.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The interval time for surveillance of low-risk branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) has not been established yet.
METHODS: The study included an international cohort of BD-IPMNs without worrisome features (WFs) or high-risk stigmata (HRS). IPMN evolution was defined as the occurrence of HRS or WFs. The derivation cohort comprised 60% of patients. The validation group comprised the remaining patients. A parametric survival model was developed in the derivation cohort using Akaike (AIC) and Bayesian (BIC) information criteria and c-index. A "k-fold" validation was used to measure the covariate effect on the accelerated failure time. Two models ("standard" and "conservative") were built and validated using the second cohort.
RESULTS: The derivation and validation cohorts included 1,992 and 1,119 BD-IPMNs. The lognormal distribution best fitted the derivation cohort (AIC=2673; BIC=2718). The pooled c-index was 0.689 (0.668 to 0.718, 95%CI). The factors reducing the time needed for IPMN evolution were age [- 2% (-1% to -3%) for each year] and cyst size [-2% (0% to -3%); for each mm]. The "conservative" model, called PANORAMA, was the only one that correctly classified the validation cohort (c-index 0.712 vs. 0.696; P=0.072).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The development of WF and HRS is influenced by the patient's age and cyst size. After a prudential first control at six months, repeating a semestral/annual follow-up in this time frame could be too tight.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The interval time for surveillance of low-risk branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) has not been established yet.
METHODS: The study included an international cohort of BD-IPMNs without worrisome features (WFs) or high-risk stigmata (HRS). IPMN evolution was defined as the occurrence of HRS or WFs. The derivation cohort comprised 60% of patients. The validation group comprised the remaining patients. A parametric survival model was developed in the derivation cohort using Akaike (AIC) and Bayesian (BIC) information criteria and c-index. A "k-fold" validation was used to measure the covariate effect on the accelerated failure time. Two models ("standard" and "conservative") were built and validated using the second cohort.
RESULTS: The derivation and validation cohorts included 1,992 and 1,119 BD-IPMNs. The lognormal distribution best fitted the derivation cohort (AIC=2673; BIC=2718). The pooled c-index was 0.689 (0.668 to 0.718, 95%CI). The factors reducing the time needed for IPMN evolution were age [- 2% (-1% to -3%) for each year] and cyst size [-2% (0% to -3%); for each mm]. The "conservative" model, called PANORAMA, was the only one that correctly classified the validation cohort (c-index 0.712 vs. 0.696; P=0.072).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The development of WF and HRS is influenced by the patient's age and cyst size. After a prudential first control at six months, repeating a semestral/annual follow-up in this time frame could be too tight.