ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of safety and effectiveness between endoscopic ultrasound-guided and ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy in focal pancreatic disease: a multi-center, retrospective, propensity score analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions in diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Emerging pathological diagnostic strategies for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: insights from omics and innovative techniques.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Review
- The World Health Organization System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: Standardized Categories and Practical Approaches to Pancreatic Lesions.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2024Article
- Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Design of a wasp-inspired biopsy needle capable of self-propulsion and friction-based tissue transport.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in suspected autoimmune pancreatitis: A 15-year single-center retrospective study.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe main objective of the present study is to compare the safety, technical success and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus ultrasound-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.
methodsThis is a retrospective study that involved all patients with a solid pancreatic lesion who underwent EUS-FNA or US-CNB between November 2019 and February 2021. Of all patients, 69 (84.1%) had inoperable malignancy, whereas 13 (15.9%) had chronic pancreatitis. Resectability status was ascertained by computed tomography. All core needle biopsies were performed by the same interventional radiologist via ultrasound guidance with an 18-gauge semi-automatic tru-cut needle. All EUS-FNA procedures were performed by the same gastroenterologist with a 27-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Technical success is defined as if the region of interest is reached and specimen taken from the pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield is defined as the procurement of sufficient tissue for pathological examination.
resultsOverall, 52 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 9.8 years) who underwent EUS-FNA and 30 patients (60.1 ± 12.1 years) who underwent US-CNB were included. Solid lesions were most commonly (61.5% in EUS-FNA and 50.0% in US-CNB groups) located in pancreatic head in both groups. Mean size of the lesions was comparable in both groups as well. The technical success was 100% in both groups. In 12 (14.6%) patients, pathology results revealed inadequate sampling (11 × in the EUS-FNA and 1 × in the US-CNB group). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher in US-CNB group than in EUS-FNA group (96.7% vs. 78.8%, respectively, p = 0.048). Of 11 patients in the EUS-FNA with inadequate sampling, pancreatic lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 7 (63.6%). No major complications were observed in neither of the groups. As a minor complication, one case of slight abdominal pain was detected in the EUS-FNA group.
conclusionBased on the results of the present study, both US-CNB and EUS-FNA appeared safe; however, diagnostic yield in the US-CNB group was significantly higher.
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.