| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Type of study: retrospective study.
Consecutive or random sample: consecutive patients. |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 48.
Females: 16 (33.3%).
Age: 69 years.
Presentation:
Patients with IPMN who had undergone surgical resection.
Setting: secondary care, Japan. |
| Index tests |
Index test: PET.
Further details:
Technical specifications: Aquiduo (Toshiba Medical Systems), Advance NXi (GE Healthcare), and Discovery ST (GE Healthcare).
Performed by: radiologist.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: SUVmax > 2 and retention index < ‐10. |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Target condition: cancerous (high‐grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low‐ or intermediate‐grade dysplasia).
Reference standard: surgical excision.
Further details:
Technical specifications: not applicable.
Performed by: clinicians.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: not stated. |
| Flow and timing |
Number of indeterminates for whom the results of reference standard were available: not stated.
Number of patients who were excluded from the analysis: not stated. |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Sensitivity and specificity for SUVmax > 2 are also available. |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
Yes |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
High |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous (high grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low or intermediate grade dysplasia) ‐ PET (SUV max 2‐2.5) |
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
No |
|
|
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
High |
High |
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard |
| Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Low |
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing |
| Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
|
