Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29667626›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

EUS-FNA in cystic pancreatic lesions: Where are we now and where are we headed in the future?

Jose Lariño-Noia, Julio Iglesias-Garcia, Daniel de la Iglesia-Garcia, J Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. [Tumorous lesion of the pancreas with unclear dignity].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jose Lariño-NoiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Comppostela, Spain.
Julio Iglesias-GarciaDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Comppostela, Spain.
Daniel de la Iglesia-GarciaDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Comppostela, Spain.
J Enrique Dominguez-MuñozDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Comppostela, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EUS-FNA is often performed in the evaluation of Cystic Pancreatic Lesions (CPL) for a better preoperative characterization. The objective is to identify premalignant lesions as Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms, and/or a malignant transformation of them (adenocarcinoma). The role of cytological evaluation in this setting is discouraging and intracystic markers analysis, mainly CEA, lacks of a good specificity for the detection of mucinous neoplasms. New devices and approaches have emerged to overcome these problems as the cytology brush (Echobrush), the small mini-biopsy foceps, the cystoscopy and the needle Confocal LASER Endomicroscopy (nCLE), showing in some studies good rates of accuracy for distinguishing among mucinosus and non-mucinous neoplasms. However, intracystic molecular marker analysis, by identifying mutations in DNA of particular genes as KRAS,GNAS,VHL, CDKN2A and others constitute the most relevant advancement of last years and will contribute in the next future to a better management of CPL. The role of EUS-FNA according to international guidelines is still controversial. While 2012 Fukuoka guidelines are restrictive in their indications AGA 2015 guidelines support it when high risk features are present, enhancing the role of the cytological evaluation in taking decisions.

Indexed as

Aspirationbiopsycystic pancreatic tumorsEUS

Identifiers

PMID29667626
PMCPMC5914181
OpenAlexW2976719694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.