ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Effect of Pancreatic Mass Size on Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Sampling Techniques for Pancreatic and Pulmonary Nodules: A Review of the Evolution of Guidance and Sampling Methods.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Review
- The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm.DEN open · 2025Article
- Role of Liquid-Based Cytology in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Efficacy of Cell Block and Liquid-Based Cytology for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Tumors.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Avoid non-diagnostic EUS-FNA: a DNN model as a possible gatekeeper to distinguish pancreatic lesions prone to inconclusive biopsy.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Coaxial Cutting Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Lesions: Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic yield of liquid-based cytology in serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination.DEN open · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting the Learning Curve in the Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Prospective Study.Gut and liver · 2023Article
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?DEN open · 2022Review
- Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasonography Diagnosis of Early Pancreatic Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Modern ultrasound imaging of pancreatic tumors.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2020Article
- Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided Coaxial Core Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy - Recent topics and technical tips.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
- Diagnostic performance of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, the effect of mass size on diagnostic accuracy has yet to be determined, especially for small pancreatic lesions. We aimed to determine the effect of pancreatic mass size on the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.
methodsWe searched the database in Hokkaido University Hospital between May 2008 and December 2016 and identified solid pancreatic lesions examined by EUS-FNA. All lesions were stratified into five groups based on mass sizes: groups A (< 10 mm), B (10-20 mm), C (20-30 mm), D (30-40 mm) and E (≥ 40 mm). The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate were retrospectively evaluated.
resultsWe analyzed a total of 788 solid pancreatic lesions in 761 patients. The patients included 440 males (57.8%) with a mean age of 65.7 years. The sensitivities in groups A (n = 36), B (n = 223), C (n = 304), D (n = 147) and E (n = 78) were 89.3%, 95.0%, 97.4%, 98.5% and 98.7%, respectively, and they significantly increased as the mass size increased (P < 0.01, chi-squared test for trend). The diagnostic accuracies were 91.7%, 96.4%, 97.7%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, and they also significantly increased as the mass size increased (P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreatic mass size was associated with diagnostic accuracy. The adverse event rates were not significantly different among the five groups.
conclusionsThe sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions are higher for lesions ≥ 10 mm in size, and they are strongly correlated with mass size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30604374What 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.