BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Correspondence
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Clin Oncol. Jul 24, 2026; 17(7): 123540
Published online Jul 24, 2026. doi: 10.5306/wjco.123540
Table 1 Core differences between the traditional static model and the proposed time-risk-state dynamic framework
Dimension
Traditional static model
Proposed three-dimensional dynamic framework
Risk ratingOne-time, fixed; based on baseline cyst morphologyDynamic, adjustable; redefined after 2 years of stable follow-up
Surveillance intensityUniform for all patients (magnetic resonance imaging/endoscopic ultrasound every 6-12 months)Differentiated by risk: Intensified (0-2 years) → low-frequency (2-5 years) → possible discontinuation (≥ 5 years)
Core decision variablesCyst size, mural nodules, MPD diameter, CA19-9 levelThree-dimensional: Cyst biology + temporal stability (2-year NPV) + patient status (age and CCI)
Endpoint for discontinuation“Surveillance until patient unfit for surgery” (passive, vague)Clear, active thresholds: Stable for ≥ 5 years, age ≥ 75 years or CCI ≥ 3, SIR not significantly different from that of the general population


Write to the Help Desk