ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Factors affecting the diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology by EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- EUS-Anchored Multimodal Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Toward a Conceptual Diagnostic Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The plakin family: Potential therapeutic targets for digestive system tumors.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2025Article
- Endoscopic management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic techniques for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This study retrospectively evaluated the value of liquid-based cytology (LBC) alone for diagnosing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) in a large sample and initially estimated factors that might affect LBC diagnostic ability. Methods: From April 2015 to October 2022, we prospectively enrolled 331 patients with suspected PCNs in our prospective database. Among them, 112 patients chosen to receive surgical resection were included. Only 96 patients who underwent EUS-guided cystic fluid LBC were finally studied. The diagnostic values of LBC for differentiating benign and malignant PCNs and subtypes of PCNs were evaluated. Results: There were 71 female and 25 male patients with a mean age of 47.6 ± 14.4 years. The median cyst size was 43.4 mm. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LBC for the differentiation of benign and malignant PCNs were 96.9%, 57.1%, 100%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy of LBC for specific cyst types was 33.3% (32/96). Cysts located in the pancreatic body/tail or with irregular shapes were more likely to obtain a definite LBC diagnosis. At the same time, age, sex, tumor size, cystic fluid viscosity, operation time, needle type, and presence of septation were not significantly different. Conclusion: Liquid-based cytology alone is useful for differentiating benign PCNs from malignant PCNs and can successfully characterize the PCN subtypes in one-third of patients. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms located in the body/tail or exhibiting irregular shapes are more likely to obtain a definite LBC diagnosis.
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.