ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2020
EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07078136 (Multicenter Observational Study of a Multimodal AI Model Using EUS, White-Light Endoscopy, and Clinical Data for Diagnosis of Upper GI Mesenchymal Tumors and Risk Stratification of Gastric GISTs), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 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.
Multicenter Observational Study of a Multimodal AI Model Using EUS, White-Light Endoscopy, and Clinical Data for Diagnosis of Upper GI Mesenchymal Tumors and Risk Stratification of Gastric GISTs
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Solitary Pancreatic Extramedullary Plasmacytoma Diagnosed Through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy-The Role of Endoscopic Diagnosis and Multidisciplinary Approach: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management of Gastrointestinal Schwannomas: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Review
- Gastric schwannoma: diagnostic challenges, pathological features, and surgical management : a narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- [Laparoscopic management of gastric schwannoma].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025Article
- The value of a nomogram model based on CT imaging features in differentiating duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors from pancreatic head neuroendocrine tumors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic yield and safety of pancreatic cystic lesions: A comparison between EUSZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions: Evolution in Management and Endoscopic Resection Techniques.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- The maximum transverse diameter: an effective indicator for predicting peroral en bloc retrieval rate of mesenchymal tumors after endoscopic resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Safety of surveillance endoscopy and EUS of the esophagus after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Results from the (pre)SANO trial.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Efficacy of EUS-guided keyhole biopsies in diagnosing subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle for Subepithelial Lesions: A Single-Center Validation Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Efficacy of real-time artificial intelligence-aid endoscopic ultrasonography diagnostic system in discriminating gastrointestinal stromal tumors and leiomyomas: a multicenter diagnostic study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) of the Luminal Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma using endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Transrectal contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transperineal core-needle biopsy versus endoscopic forceps biopsy in the diagnosis of complex rectal lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Duodenal Subepithelial Lesions Showing a Hypoechoic Mass on Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Observational
- Endoscopic ultrasound artificial intelligence-assisted for prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Article
- The Latest Advancements in Diagnostic Role of Endosonography of Pancreatic Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAlthough conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.
methodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.
resultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.
conclusionsEUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.
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.