ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
New guidelines for use of endoscopic ultrasound for evaluation and risk stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions may be too conservative.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration is useful in pancreatic cysts smaller than 3 cm.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Article
- An Appraisal of Current Guidelines for Managing Malignancy in Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm.JOP : Journal of the pancreas · 2018Article
- Comparing accuracy of high-risk features for detecting advanced neoplasia in pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of EUS in managing asymptomatic pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains unresolved. We retrospectively evaluated EUS in risk stratification of PCLs when adhering to the most recent AGA guidelines.
methodsAsymptomatic PCLs that were evaluated by EUS from January 2014 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed including associated cytology, fluid analysis, and relevant surgical pathology. Cross-sectional imaging reports were reviewed blindly by an expert radiologist using AGA risk stratification terminology. Accepted imaging high-risk features (HRF) included cyst diameter > 3 cm, dilated upstream pancreatic ducts, and a solid component in the cyst.
resultsWe reviewed 125 patients who underwent EUS. Expert review of cross-sectional imaging resulted in a different interpretation 25% of the time including 1 malignant cyst. Ninety-three patients (75%) had no HRFs on cross-sectional imaging; 28 patients (22%) were diagnosed with 1 HRF and 4 patients (3%) had 2 HRFs. Adhering to AGA guidelines using 2 HRF as threshold for use of EUS, the diagnosis of malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions (including pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumors, and IPMN with dysplasia) had a 40% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Had EUS been utilized based on a threshold of 1 HRF on imaging, malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions would have been identified with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. By adding EUS to radiographic imaging, the specificity for detecting carcinomas (p = 0.0009) and detection of all premalignant lesions (p = 0.003) statistically improved. Furthermore, EUS allowed 14 patients (11%) to avoid further surveillance by lowering their risk stratification.
conclusionEUS remains an essential risk stratification modality for incidental PCLs. Current guideline suggestions of its utility may be too stringent. Our study justifies expert radiology review when managing PCLs. Further studies are required to identify the optimal approach to PCL management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.