Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36052613›Full record

Trial reportGut and liver2023

Tissue Quality Comparison Between Heparinized Wet Suction and Dry Suction in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Randomized Crossover Study.

Meng-Ying Lin, Cheng-Lin Wu, Yung-Yeh Su, Chien-Jui Huang, Wei-Lun Chang, Bor-Shyang Sheu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gut and liver, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04707560 (Comparison of Heparin-based Wet Suction Method With Dry Suction Method in EUS Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Mass), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-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.

NCT04707560 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Heparin-based Wet Suction Method With Dry Suction Method in EUS Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Mass

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Cheng-Kung University HospitalRan2020 to 2021Enrolled50ConditionsEndoscopic Ultrasonography, EUS-FNA, Pancreatic NeoplasmsArmsEUS fine needle biopsy with heparin wet suction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meng-Ying LinDepartments of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-9431-1541
Cheng-Lin WuDepartments of Pathology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1331-2092
Yung-Yeh SuDepartments of Oncology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-5133-5316
Chien-Jui HuangDepartments of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4987-6439
Wei-Lun ChangDepartments of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-0238-527X
Bor-Shyang SheuDepartments of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1500-6929
National Cheng Kung University Hospital · TWNational Health Research Institutes · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: A high-quality sample allows for next-generation sequencing and the administration of more tailored precision medicine treatments. We aimed to evaluate whether heparinized wet suction can obtain higher quality samples than the standard dry-suction method during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses. Methods: A prospective randomized crossover study was conducted. Patients with a solid pancreatic mass were randomly allocated to receive either heparinized wet suction first or dry suction first. For each method, two needle passes were made, followed by a switch to the other method for a total of four needle punctures. The primary outcome was the aggregated white tissue length. Histological blood contamination, diagnostic performance and adverse events were analyzed as secondary outcomes. In addition, the correlation between white tissue length and the extracted DNA amount was analyzed. Results: A total of 50 patients were enrolled, and 200 specimens were acquired (100 with heparinized wet suction and 100 with dry suction), with one minor bleeding event. The heparinized wet suction approach yielded specimens with longer aggregated white tissue length (11.07 mm vs 7.96 mm, p=0.001) and less blood contamination (p=0.008). A trend towards decreasing tissue quality was observed for the 2nd pass of the dry-suction method, leading to decreased diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy, although the accumulated diagnostic performance was comparable between the two suction methods. The amount of extracted DNA correlated positively to the white tissue length (p=0.001, Spearman̕s ρ=0.568). Conclusions: Heparinized wet suction for EUS tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses can yield longer, bloodless, DNA-rich tissue without increasing the incidence of adverse events (ClinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT04707560).

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsCross-Over StudiesEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansPancreasProspective StudiesSuctionBiopsyDNAEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspirationfine-needleHeparinPancreatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36052613
PMCPMC10018294
OpenAlexW4294225847

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.