ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Prospective evaluation of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic mass lesions.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Trial
- Enhanced Pancreatitis Detection: FAPI PET/CT Emerging Utility in Patient with Pancreatic Mass.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Multicentre Collaborative ECCO CONFER Study.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2023Article
- Performance of EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic masses: a lesson from 463 consecutive procedures and a practical nomogram.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Review
- Detectability and structural stability of a liquid fiducial marker in fresh ex vivo pancreas tumour resection specimens on CT and 3T MRI.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition.Endoscopy international open · 2019Review
- IgG4-related disease: with emphasis on the biopsy diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and sclerosing cholangitis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2018Review
- Mutational profiling of 103 unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas using EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsies of solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions: a large single-operator experience with a new fine-needle biopsy needle.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimDue to the scarcity of specific data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsies (SharkCore) FNB in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions, we performed a prospective study of the diagnostic performance of EUS SharkCore FNB in patients with pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. PATIENTS AND
methodsSingle-center prospective study of 41 consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB from October 2015 to April 2016 at our center. EUS-FNB was obtained in a predefined setting regarding the procedure and pathological evaluation. Data regarding demographics, lesion, technical parameters, and diagnostic accuracy were obtained.
resultsThe study included 41 consecutive patients (22 males (54 %); median age 68 years). The average size of the lesions was 28 mm (median: 30 mm). A diagnostic specimen was identified in 40 (98 %) cases during microscopy with an average of 2.4 passes. The route was trans-duodenal in 20 cases (49 %). The histological diagnosis of the specimens was malignant in 29 cases (71 %), benign in 8 (20 %), suspicious in 2 (5 %), atypical in 1 (2 %) and in 1 (2 %) no material for microscopic evaluation was obtained. This led to a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %, sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 100 %. 2 cases (5 %) of self-limiting bleeding were observed. The diagnosis at follow up was malignant in 32 (78 %) of the patients.
conclusionsEUS-FNB of pancreatic mass lesions with the SharkCore needle produced specimens with a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %. The procedure was safe and easy to perform, and these data support the use of EUS-FNB in a routine setting.
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.