ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation for preoperative diagnosis of resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a prospective study.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: current evidence and future perspectives.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A case of needle tract seeding of pancreatic adenosquamous carcinoma after a single endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo validate endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) used in conjunction with stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation (SOSE) as a preoperative diagnostic tool for resectable pancreatic cancer (R-PC) and borderline resectable PC (BR-PC).
methodsSeventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for suspected R-PC or BR-PC were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of EUS-TA together with SOSE based on the stereomicroscopically visible white core (SVWC) cutoff value. One or two sites were punctured by using a 22-gauge biopsy needle for EUS-TA, based on the SOSE findings.
resultsWe collected 99 specimens from 56 and 22 patients with R-PC and BR-PC, respectively. Based on the SOSE results, we performed 57 procedures with one puncture. The SVWC cutoff values were met in 73.7% and 73.1% of all specimens and in those obtained during the first puncture, respectively. The final diagnoses were malignant and benign tumors in 76 and two patients, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-TA for the 78 lesions were 90.8%, 100%, and 91.0%, respectively. The sensitivity for malignant diagnosis based on the SVWC cutoff value were 89.5% and 90.4% for the first puncture and all specimens, respectively.
conclusionsThe sensitivity of EUS-TA in conjunction with SOSE for malignancy diagnosis in patients with suspected R-PC or BR-PC was 90.4%.
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.