ArticleGut and liver2020
Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Local Recurrence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Surgical Resection.
Article in Gut and liver, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A soft tissue mass around the arteries after pancreatectomy: the association with local recurrence and the impact of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Utility of endoscopic ultrasound for assessment of locoregional recurrence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after surgical resection.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA; EUS-FNA) allows for diagnostic tissue specimens from various regions to be analyzed. However, diagnosing recurrent pancreaticobiliary cancer after surgery is sometimes difficult. We evaluated the efficacy of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of local recurrence of pancreaticobiliary cancer and analyzed the factors associated with falsenegative results. Methods: Fifty-one consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to suspected recurrence of pancreaticobiliary cancer after surgery in an academic center were retrospectively analyzed. The criteria for EUS-FNA were a resected margin or remnant pancreas mass, round swollen lymph node (≥10 mm in diameter), and soft-tissue enhancement around a major artery. Patients with suspected liver metastasis or malignant ascites were excluded. Results: Thirty-nine of the 51 patients had pancreatic cancer; the remaining 12 had biliary cancer. The target sites for EUS-FNA were the soft tissue around a major artery (n=22, 43%), the resected margin or remnant pancreas (n=12, 24%), and the lymph nodes (n=17, 33%). The median size of the suspected recurrent lesions was 15 mm (range, 8 to 40 mm). The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of recurrence was 84% (32/38), 100% (13/13), and 88% (45/51), respectively. FNA of the soft tissue around major arteries (odds ratio, 8.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 166.7; p=0.033) was significantly associated with a falsenegative diagnosis in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is useful for diagnosing recurrent cancer, even after pancreaticobiliary surgery. The diagnoses of recurrence at soft-tissue sites should be interpreted with caution.
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.