ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2023
Multicenter Study on the Performance of Imaging Tests Compared to Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas.
Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2023
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) is difficult. Preoperative diagnosis by endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is possible and has been reported in the literature in pancreatic tumors. However, its usefulness is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of patients with SPN and describe the findings in computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography imaging (MRI/MRCP), and EUS therefore comparing the imaging methods alone to the findings of microhistology (McH) obtained by EUS-FNA. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients undergoing EUS-FNA with suspected SPN in imaging studies in 5 Brazilian high-volume hospitals (two university hospitals and three private hospitals). The demographic data; findings in CT, MRI/MRCP, and EUS; and McH results obtained by EUS-FNA were noted prospectively. The final diagnosis was obtained after the anatomopathological examination of the surgical specimen in all patients (gold standard), and we compared the results of CT, MRI/MRCP, EUS, and the McH with the gold standard. Results: Fifty-four patients were included in the study, of which 49 (90.7%) were women with an average age of 33.4 (range 11-78) years. The most common symptom presented was abdominal pain, present in 35.2% patients. SPN was detected incidentally in 32 (59%) patients. The average size of the tumors was 3.8 cm (SD: 2.26). The most common finding at EUS was a solid, solid/cystic, and cystic lesion in 52.9%, 41.1%, and 7.8% patients, respectively. The final diagnosis was 51 patients with SPN and 3 with nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-NET). The correct diagnosis was made by CT, MRI/MRCP, EUS isolated, and EUS-FNA in 21.9%, 28.88%, 64.71%, and 88.24%, respectively. EUS-FNA associated with CT and MRI increased diagnostic performance from 22.72% to 94.11% and from 29.16% to 94.11%, respectively. Conclusions: SPN are rare, incidentally identified in most cases, and affect young women. Differential diagnosis between SPN, NF-NET, and other types of tumors with imaging tests can be difficult. EUS-FNA increases preoperative diagnosis in case of diagnostic doubt and should be used whenever necessary to rule out NF-NET or other type of solid/cystic nodular lesion of the pancreas.
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.