Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032729›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2023

Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor.

Sakue Masuda, Kazuya Koizumi, Kento Shionoya, Ryuhei Jinushi, Makomo Makazu, Takashi Nishino, Karen Kimura, Chihiro Sumida, Jun Kubota, Chikamasa Ichita and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Percutaneous Biopsy and Drainage of the Pancreas.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sakue MasudaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan. sakue.masuda@tokushukai.jp.
Kazuya KoizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Kento ShionoyaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Ryuhei JinushiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Makomo MakazuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Takashi NishinoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Karen KimuraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Chihiro SumidaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Jun KubotaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Chikamasa IchitaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Akiko SasakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Masahiro KobayashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Makoto KakoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kanagawa 247-8533, Japan.
Uojima HarukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa 252-0375, Japan.
Shonan Kamakura General Hospital · JPKitasato University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is speculated to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030, a high mortality rate considering the number of cases. Surgery and chemotherapy are the main treatment options, but they are burdensome for patients. A clear histological diagnosis is needed to determine a treatment plan, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is a suitable technique that does not worsen the cancer-specific prognosis even for lesions at risk of needle tract seeding. With the development of personalized medicine and precision treatment, there has been an increasing demand to increase cell counts and collect specimens while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of the fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle. EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. However, EUS-FNA is sometimes necessary where the FNB needle cannot penetrate small hard lesions, so it is important clinicians are familiar with both. Given these recent dev-elopments, we present an up-to-date review of the role of EUS-TA in pancreatic cancer. Particularly, technical aspects, such as needle caliber, negative pressure, and puncture methods, for obtaining an adequate specimen in EUS-TA are discussed.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationPancreatic NeoplasmsEndosonographyHumansPancreasEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsyEndoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisitionGenomic profiling testPancreatic cancerPersonalized medicinePuncture procedure

Identifiers

PMID37032729
PMCPMC10080698
OpenAlexW4361006868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.