ReviewReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2018
Is endoscopic ultrasonography more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?
Review in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms-Heterogeneity, management and perspectives of treatment and research].Der Internist · 2020Pooled it
- DOCK10 Regulates Insulin Hypersecretion in Insulinoma and Serves as a Diagnostic and Therapeutic Target.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-based intratumoral and peritumoral machine learning ultrasomics model for predicting the pathological grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Characteristics, therapy, and outcome of rare functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the detection of pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals.Familial cancer · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Changes in diagnosis and operative treatment of insulinoma over two decades.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (EUS-FNT) for preoperative localization of small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs): a single-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Incidental 68Ga-DOTATATE uptake in the pancreatic head: A case report and a unique opportunity to improve clinical care.Medicine · 2020Article
- Neuroendocrine neoplasms - think about it and choose the most appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic steps.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2018Article
- How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
- Diagnostic Anatomic Imaging for Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Maximizing Strengths and Mitigating Weaknesses.Journal of computer assisted tomographyReview
- Do we need contrast agents for EUS?Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of their sensitivities to localize pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) preoperatively. Systematic analysis of the literature; sensitivity of EUS and MRI in insulinomas and pancreaticoduodenal NETs in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) in series of at least 20 subjects referring to tumors confirmed by surgery and histopathology. Other imaging methods reported were also assessed. Eighteen publications on insulinomas (782 cases) could be analyzed, no study in MEN1 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and compared EUS to MRI. Data quality was moderate: all publications referred to case series. Mean correct detection / localization rates (sensitivity) were calculated: EUS 80%, MRI 66%, computed tomography 63%, angiography 52%, somatostatin receptor scintigraphy 42%, ultrasonography 23%; arterial calcium stimulation with hepatic venous sampling regionalized correctly in 80%. EUS seems to be more sensitive than MRI in localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. If a specialized endosonographist is available, EUS is the preferable imaging procedure. Otherwise, MRI is a suitable alternative.
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.