ArticleGland surgery2022
Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic cancer patients who failed to obtain a pathological diagnosis in surgical exploration.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- EUS-FNA with ROSE for pancreatic solid lesions: a single-center experience.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Detection value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided 19G fine-needle wet-heparinized suction for pancreatic solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial.Gland surgery · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for the analysis of diagnostic tissue specimens from various regions. For pancreatic tumors, especially un-resectable ones, how to obtain pathological confirmation is important for determining sub-sequent treatment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical utility of EUS-FNA in patients who failed to obtain a pathological diagnosis in surgical exploration. Methods: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to unsuccessful biopsy in surgical exploration in our center were retrospectively reviewed. All of the patients were diagnosed with resectable disease before surgery but were found to be unresectable during surgery. The positive rate of pathological diagnosis of EUS-FNA was analyzed. Results: A total of 11 patients were included in this study, among which 8 were males and 3 were females. The median age of the patients was 55 years (range, 48 to 73 years). The median lesion size was 34 mm (range, 25 to 44 mm). The median number of needle passes was 3 (range, 1 to 3). Two patients underwent biliary stent implantation while 3 patients underwent gastrojejunostomy before EUS-FNA. The technical success rate of EUS-FNA was 100% (11/11); 10 (90.9%, 10/11) samples were positive and 1 was negative (being inadequate). Conclusions: Intraoperative biopsy is the first choice diagnostic modality for unresectable pancreatic neoplasms. However, for patients who fail to obtain a pathological diagnosis in surgical exploration, EUS-FNA is still worth an attempt.
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.