ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Safety and feasibility of percutaneous abdominal lavage cytology screening (PACS) prior to surgical resection for pancreatic cancer.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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.
- Phase 1 trial of lavage cytology collected with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for preoperative pancreatic cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, diagnostic yield, and technical aspects of percutaneous abdominal lavage cytology screening (PACS) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective study included patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who underwent PACS before pancreatectomy between May 2022 and October 2023. The technical success rate, position of the drainage tube, volume of fluid administered, volume of fluid retrieved, fluid retrieval rate, and adverse events were evaluated. The cytological results of PACS were compared with those of surgical peritoneal lavage performed during pancreatectomy.
resultsForty-four patients were enrolled in this study. The technical success rate for PACS was 100%. Drainage tube placement was outside the pouch of Douglas in all patients in the right-sided abdominal approach group (n = 10), whereas the placement was in the pouch of Douglas in all patients in the suprapubic approach group (n = 34). The mean volume of fluid administered, mean volume of fluid retrieved, and fluid retrieval rate were 185.0 ± 22.9 ml vs. 97.1 ± 32.0 ml (p < 0.001), 36.8 ± 25.6 ml vs. 50.5 ± 21.6 ml (p = 0.059), and 19.0 ± 12.4% vs. 54.9 ± 21.9% (p < 0.001) in the right abdominal approach and suprapubic approach groups, respectively. No adverse events were reported. The cytological results were benign in 42 patients; no discrepancy was observed in the results of surgical peritoneal lavage (n = 36).
conclusionPACS is a feasible and safe procedure that can be performed before pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. the suprapubic approach may be ideal and PACS could be a screening method to detect carcinomatous peritonitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39120716What 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.