ArticleCureus2023
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCompare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.
resultsA total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).
conclusionsThe PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.
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.