Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36089484›Full record

ArticlePancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.]2022

Accuracy and agreement of a large panel of endosonographers for endomicroscopy-guided virtual biopsy of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Jorge D Machicado, Bertrand Napoleon, Anne Marie Lennon, Samer El-Dika, Stephen P Pereira, Damien Tan, Rahul Pannala, Mohit Girotra, Pradermchai Kongkam, Helga Bertani and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.], 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 16 institutions in 7 countries.

Jorge D MachicadoUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Bertrand NapoleonHopital Privé Jean Mermoz, Ramsay Generale de Sante, Lyon, France.
Anne Marie LennonJohns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Samer El-DikaStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stephen P PereiraUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
Damien TanSingapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Rahul PannalaMayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
Mohit GirotraSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Pradermchai KongkamDivision of Hospital and Ambulatory Medicine, Department of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Helga BertaniAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Modena, Modena, Italy.
Yunlu FengPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Dongcheng-qu, Beijing, China.
Hao SijieHuashan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ning ZhongQilu Hospital of Shandong University Qingdao, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Vincent ValantinHopital Europeen Georges Pompidou, Paris, Île-de-France, France.
Sarah LeblancHopital Privé Jean Mermoz, Ramsay Generale de Sante, Lyon, France.
Alice HintonDivision of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Somashekar G KrishnaThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: Somashekar.krishna@osumc.edu.
Hôpital Privé Jean Mermo · FRAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena · ITChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNChulalongkorn University · THFudan University · CNHôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FRJohns Hopkins University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USQilu Hospital of Shandong University · CNSingapore General Hospital · SGStanford University · USSwedish Medical Center · USThe Ohio State University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Tumor Antigens for Individual Signatures and TherapyP50CA062924 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JAFFEE, ELIZABETH M. · 1993 to 2022
$54.6M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA062924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough emerging data evidences that EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) accurately diagnoses pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), there are a lack of interobserver agreement (IOA) studies utilizing reference histopathological diagnosis and for specific PCL subtypes. Hence, we sought to assess the IOA, intra-observer reliability (IOR), and diagnostic performance of EUS-nCLE using a large cohort of patients with histopathological diagnosis amongst a broad panel of international observers.

methodsEUS-nCLE videos (n = 76) of subjects with PCLs [intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN), serous cystadenoma (SCA), pseudocyst, and cystic-neuroendocrine tumors/solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (cystic-NET/SPN)], simulating clinical prevalence rates were obtained from 3 prospective studies. An international panel of 13 endosonographers with nCLE experience, blinded to all PCL data, evaluated the video library twice with a two-week washout for PCL differentiation (mucinous vs. non-mucinous) and subtype diagnosis.

resultsThe IOA (κ = 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.87) and IOR (κ = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) were "almost perfect" to differentiate mucinous vs. non-mucinous PCLs. For PCL subtype, IOA was highest for SCA (almost perfect; κ = 0.85), followed by IPMN (substantial, κ = 0.72), and cystic-NET/SPN (substantial, κ = 0.73). The IOA was moderate for MCN (κ = 0.47), and pseudocyst (κ = 0.57). Compared to histopathology, observers differentiated mucinous vs. non-mucinous PCLs with high accuracy (94.8%, 95% CI 93.3-96.1). For detecting specific PCLs subtypes, EUS-nCLE was highly accurate in diagnosing non-mucinous cysts (SCA: 98%; cystic-NET/SPN: 96%; pseudocyst: 96%) and slightly less accurate for mucinous lesions (IPMN: 86%; MCN: 84%).

conclusionDiagnosis of PCLs by EUS-nCLE guided virtual biopsy is very accurate and reliable for the most prevalent pancreatic cysts in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cystadenoma, SerousNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic CystPancreatic Intraductal NeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansMicroscopy, ConfocalProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsConfocal endomicroscopyEndoscopic ultrasoundIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasmPancreas cystsPancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID36089484
PMCPMC10548449
OpenAlexW4293767262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.