Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33657782›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2021

High Sensitivity of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Per Hedenström, Vasilis Chatzikyriakos, Roozbeh Shams, Catarina Lewerin, Riadh Sadik

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02360839 (The Use of FNA and FNB in the Optimization of EUS-assisted Tissue Sampling), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT02360839 nacompletednot on this map

The Use of FNA and FNB in the Optimization of EUS-assisted Tissue Sampling

TypeinterventionalSponsorPer HedenströmRan2009 to 2022Enrolled1,000ConditionsNeoplasmsArmsEUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Per HedenströmDivision of Medical Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Vasilis ChatzikyriakosDepartment of Clinical Pathology and Genetics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Roozbeh ShamsSahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Catarina LewerinDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Riadh SadikDivision of Medical Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

Assar Gabrielsson Foundation 17-20Magtarmfonden 79211Sahlgrenska University Hospital ALFGBG-875671The Health and Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland VGFOUREG-564381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.

methodsIn a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.

resultsForty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59-76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUSFNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.

conclusionIn lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

Indexed as

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirationEndosonographyFine-needle biopsyLymphadenopathy

Identifiers

PMID33657782
PMCPMC8505168
OpenAlexW3135164136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.