Search

Additional file 1. Table S1: Search strategy for PubMed and EMBASE for the meta-analysis; Table S2: Comparison of 4116 study participants included in final analyses and 2687 excluded due to data missing in the CHARLS; Table S3: Association of baseline hs-CRP and longitudinal hs-CRP changes with incident MetS after multiple imputations of missing data (N = 4497); Table S4: Association of baseline hs-CRP and longitudinal hs-CRP changes and incident MetS after excluding participants with diabetes, heart disease and stroke (N = 3561); Table S5: Association between baseline hs-CRP and components of MetS among age, sex and BMI subgroups (N = 4116); Table S6: Association between longitudinal hs-CRP changes and components of MetS among age, sex and BMI subgroups; Table S7: Basic information of studies included in the meta-analysis; Table S8: Quality assessment for the 10 included studies in the meta-analysis; Figure S1: Flowchart of inclusion and exclusion of study participants; Figure S2: Flowchart of literature identification for the meta-analysis; Figure S3: Association of combined baseline hs-CRP and longitudinal hs-CRP changes with incident MetS; Figure S4: Sensitivity analyses for the association between hs-CRP and incident MetS with exclusions of each study a time; Figure S5: Funnel plot for assessment of publication bias for the association between hs-CRP and MetS.

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 1# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 2. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 2# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 3. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 3# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 4. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 4# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 5. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 5# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 6. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 6# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 7. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 7# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 8. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 8# under the CT scan. Supplementary Figure 9. Comparing the pixel values between the infarct and the corresponding contralateral healthy area for patient 9# under the CT scan.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal malignancy. Its prevalence rate remains low but continues to grow each year. Among all stages of PC, metastatic PC is defined as late‑stage (stage IV) PC and has an even higher fatality rate. Patients with PC do not have any specific clinical manifestations. Most cases are inoperable at the time‑point of diagnosis. Prognosis is also poor even with curative‑intent surgery. Complications during surgery, postoperative pancreatic fistula and recurrence with metastatic foci make the management of metastatic PC difficult. While extensive efforts were made to improve survival outcomes, further elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of metastasis poses a formidable challenge. The present review provided an overview of the mechanisms of metastatic PC, summarizing currently known signaling pathways (e.g. epithelial‑mesenchymal transition, NF‑κB and KRAS), imaging that may be utilized for early detection and biomarkers (e.g. carbohydrate antigen 19‑9, prostate cancer‑associated transcript‑1, F‑box/LRR‑repeat protein 7 and tumor stroma), giving insight into promising therapeutic targets.