Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34689752›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2021

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) from peritoneal lesions: a prospective cohort pilot study.

Pradermchai Kongkam, Theerapat Orprayoon, Sirilak Yooprasert, Nakarin Sirisub, Naruemon Klaikaew, Anapat Sanpawat, Shahram Safa, Wiriyaporn Ridtitid, Pinit Kullavanijaya, Rungsun Rerknimitr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pradermchai KongkamExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Theerapat OrprayoonExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. platy_pt1301@hotmail.com.
Sirilak YooprasertExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nakarin SirisubDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Naruemon KlaikaewDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Anapat SanpawatDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Shahram SafaExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wiriyaporn RidtitidExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pinit KullavanijayaExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rungsun RerknimitrExcellence Center for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chulalongkorn University · THKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital · THThai Red Cross Society · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).

aimThis pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.

methodsFrom March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.

resultsA total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2-3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.

conclusionsEUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsPeritoneal DiseasesEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesThailandAbdominal paracentesisAscitesCarcinomatosis peritoneiEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA)Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB)Omental cakeOmentumPeritoneal carcinomatosisPeritoneal ligamentPeritoneal space

Identifiers

PMID34689752
PMCPMC8542287
OpenAlexW3208684387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.