Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2015
The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Guideline
- Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).Gut and liver · 2021Guideline
- Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy With Simplified Macroscopic On-site Evaluation (With Video).DEN open · 2027Article
- Optimal Number of Needle Punctures in EUS-FNA/B with ROSE for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The role of rapid on-site evaluation in pancreatic lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Masses to Negate the Need for Rapid On-site Evaluation: A Randomized Control Trial.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Macroscopic on‑site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound‑guided fine needle aspiration using a 22‑gauge needle for solid lesions: A single‑center retrospective study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Advances in pre-treatment evaluation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a narrative review.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Article
- Factors Affecting the Learning Curve in the Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Prospective Study.Gut and liver · 2023Article
- Franseen Needles May Be Promising for Improving the Sampling Adequacy of EUS-FNA for Subepithelial Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Technical Performance, Overall Accuracy and Complications of EUS-Guided Interventional Procedures: A Dynamic Landscape.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesObservational data on the impact of on-site cytopathology evaluation (OCE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses have reported conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses with and without OCE.
methodsIn this multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent randomization for EUS-FNA with or without OCE. The number of FNA passes in the OCE+ arm was dictated by the on-site cytopathologist, whereas seven passes were performed in OCE- arm. EUS-FNA protocol was standardized, and slides were reviewed by cytopathologists using standardized criteria for cytologic characteristics and diagnosis.
resultsA total of 241 patients (121 OCE+, 120 OCE-) were included. There was no difference between the two groups in diagnostic yield of malignancy (OCE+ 75.2% vs. OCE- 71.6%, P=0.45) and proportion of inadequate specimens (9.8 vs. 13.3%, P=0.31). Procedures in OCE+ group required fewer EUS-FNA passes (median, OCE+ 4 vs. OCE- 7, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to overall procedure time, adverse events, number of repeat procedures, costs (based on baseline cost-minimization analysis), and accuracy (using predefined criteria for final diagnosis of malignancy). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to cytologic characteristics of cellularity, bloodiness, number of cells/slide, and contamination.
conclusionsResults of this study demonstrated no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy, proportion of inadequate specimens, and accuracy in patients with pancreatic mass undergoing EUS-FNA with or without OCE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26346868What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.