ArticleBMC gastroenterology2021
Evaluation of preoperative diagnostic methods for resectable pancreatic cancer: a diagnostic capability and impact on the prognosis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Needle Tract Seeding Following Transgastric Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Tail Cancer: A Case Report.DEN open · 2026Article
- Comparative diagnostic efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for gallbladder tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Duodenal Fluid Analysis as a Rewarding Approach to Detect Low-Abundance Mutations in Biliopancreatic Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Impact of preoperative endoscopic procedures on adverse event rates after surgical resection for main-duct and mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs).Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2024Article
- Circulating autoantibodies to alpha-enolase (ENO1) and far upstream element-binding protein 1 (FUBP1) are negative prognostic factors for pancreatic cancer patient survival.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- Pancreatic Juice Cytology Evaluations Using Synthetic Secretin and Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytological Examination for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Needle Tract Seeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Evaluating Pancreatic and Biliary Neoplasms with Small Biopsy-Based Next Generation Sequencing (NGS): Doing More with Less.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA pathological diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be performed as much as possible to determine the appropriate treatment strategy, but priorities and algorithms for diagnostic methods have not yet been established. In recent years, the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the primary method of collecting tissues from pancreatic disease, but the effect of EUS-FNA on surgical results and prognosis has not been clarified.
aimsTo evaluate the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its effect on the preoperative diagnosis, surgical outcome, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.
methodsBetween January 2005 and June 2017, 293 patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic cancer were retrospectively evaluated. The outcomes of interest were the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its influence on the surgical results and prognosis.
resultsThe diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 94.4%, which was significantly higher than that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (45.5%) (p < 0.001). The adverse event rate in ERCP was 10.2%, which was significantly higher than EUS-FNA (1.3%) (p = 0.001). Patients were divided into FNA group (N = 160) and non-FNA group (N = 133) for each preoperative diagnostic method. In the study of surgical curability R0 between the two groups, there was no significant difference in FNA group (65.0% [104/160]) and non-FNA group (64.7% [86/133], p = 1.000). In the prognostic study, 256 patients with curative R0 or R1 had a recurrence rate was 54.3% (70/129) in the FNA group and 57.4% (73/127) in the non-FNA group. Moreover peritoneal dissemination occurred in 34.3% (24/70) in the FNA group and in 21.9% (16/73) in the non-FNA group, neither of which showed a significant difference. The median survival times of the FNA and non-FNA groups were 955 days and 799 days, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (log-rank p = 0.735). In the Cox proportional hazards model, factors influencing prognosis, staging, curability, and adjuvant chemotherapy were the dominant factors, but the preoperative diagnostic method (EUS-FNA) itself was not.
conclusionsEUS-FNA is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic ability for the preoperative examination of pancreatic cancer. It was considered the first choice without the influence of surgical curability, postoperative recurrence, peritoneal dissemination and prognosis.
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.