Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38731128›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer.

Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Yash R Shah, Hassam Ali, Saurabh Chandan, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Andrew Canakis, Daryl Ramai, Umar Hayat, Bhanu Siva Mohan Pinnam, Amna Iqbal and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer: applications in early detection, tumor staging, and survival prediction-a comprehensive review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

18 authors.

Dushyant Singh DahiyaDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Motility, The University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8544-9039
Yash R ShahDepartment of Internal Medicine, Trinity Health Oakland/Wayne State University, Pontiac, MI 48341, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8976-5821
Hassam AliDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, East Carolina University/Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
Saurabh ChandanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2661-6693
Manesh Kumar GangwaniDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.
Andrew CanakisDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Daryl RamaiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.
Umar HayatDepartment of Internal Medicine, Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes Barre, PA 18711, USA.
Bhanu Siva Mohan PinnamDepartment of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Amna IqbalDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43614, USA.
Sheza MalikDepartment of Internal Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY 14621, USA.
Sahib SinghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21215, USA.
Fouad JaberSection of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4176-0332
Saqr AlsakarnehDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8776-2176
Islam MohamedDivision of Hepatology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO 64108, USA.
Meer Akbar AliDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.
Mohammad Al-HaddadDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Jordan, 11942 Amman, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0003-1641-9976
Sumant InamdarDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Pancreatic lesions consist of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions and often pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to similar clinical and radiological features. In recent years, pancreatic lesions have been discovered more frequently as incidental findings due to the increased utilization and widespread availability of abdominal cross-sectional imaging. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish an early and appropriate diagnosis with meticulous differentiation in an attempt to balance unnecessary treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and missing the opportunity for early intervention in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic modality for the identification and risk stratification of pancreatic lesions due to its ability to provide detailed imaging and acquisition of tissue samples for analysis with the help of fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The recent development of EUS-based technology, including contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, real-time elastography-endoscopic ultrasound, miniature probe ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and the application of artificial intelligence has significantly augmented the diagnostic accuracy of EUS as it enables better evaluation of the number, location, dimension, wall thickness, and contents of these lesions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of the different types of EUS available for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions while discussing their key strengths and important limitations.

Indexed as

advantagesartificial intelligencedisadvantagesendoscopic interventionsendoscopic ultrasoundpancreatic cystic lesions

Identifiers

PMID38731128
PMCPMC11084399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.