ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions in diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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.
- Accuracy and safety of percutaneous CT-guided pancreatic biopsies.La Radiologia medica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer is highly lethal and often diagnosed at an advanced stage, highlighting the need for early and accurate diagnosis. Although imaging plays a crucial role, definitive pathological confirmation requires biopsy. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB), computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy (CT-CNB), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are the three main biopsy techniques, each differing in diagnostic accuracy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these three biopsy techniques for suspiciously malignant pancreatic lesions. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious malignant pancreatic lesions who underwent US-CNB, CT-CNB, or EUS-FNA from January 2018 to January 2023. We compared technical success rates, sample adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and complication rates of three groups. Additionally, we calculated the cost/effectiveness ratio (C/E) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each method. Results: A total of 399 patients were enrolled (US-CNB, n=86; CT-CNB, n=55; EUS-FNA, n=258), achieving 100% technical success. Sample adequacy satisfaction rates were 97.70% for US-CNB, 90.90% for CT-CNB, and 74.03% for EUS-FNA, with EUS-FNA significantly lower compared to the other two methods (P<0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for US-CNB (97.70%) and CT-CNB (90.90%) compared to EUS-FNA (69.80%) (P<0.001). Complication rates were 15.12% for US-CNB, 16.36% for CT-CNB, and 10.47% for EUS-FNA, with no significant differences (P=0.319). Compared to EUS-FNA, ICER for US-CNB was -14,367.7 yuan and for CT-CNB was -8,279.22 yuan per correct diagnosis, both below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusions: US-CNB and CT-CNB demonstrate superior diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy compared to EUS-FNA for suspected malignant pancreatic lesions. There are no significant differences in postoperative complication rates among three biopsy methods. In terms of cost-effectiveness, US-CNB and CT-CNB have lower costs and higher effectiveness than EUS-FNA, indicating greater economic efficiency.
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.