ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2025
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic core-needle/microforceps biopsy is a valuable diagnostic tool for pancreatic lesions: Experience from a large academic institution.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions - Good Progress, but "Percystent" Concerns.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Identifying Neoplastic Versus Non-neoplastic Pancreatic Cystic Lesions-What Is the Current Evidence?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Review
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
objectiveEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided, fine-needle core biopsy (FNB), and through-the-needle microforceps biopsy (TTNB) are latest tools for evaluating pancreatic lesions. We aim to provide subspecialty surgical pathologists' experience with EUS-FNB/TTNB in diagnosing pancreatic lesions at a large academic center.
methodsA 3-year review identified 101 EUS pancreatic specimens submitted for surgical pathology: 87 biopsy specimens (FNB = 58, TTNB = 29) and 14 fine-needle aspirations (FNAs). Diagnoses were compared with cytology and resection specimens when available.
resultsOf the 101 cases, 10 had previous EUS-FNA cytology with inconclusive diagnoses. Rebiopsy with EUS-FNB/TTNB provided definitive diagnoses in 9 cases. Thirty-five cases (18 cystic and 17 solid lesions) had concurrent surgical pathology and cytology specimens. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB/TTNB biopsy specimens (69%) was significantly higher than that of cytology specimens (26%, P = .0017), as was the diagnostic accuracy (P = .0012). This diagnostic advantage was statistically significant in cystic lesions (FNB/TTNB [83.3%] vs cytology [16.7%] for achieving a specific diagnosis, P = .0002) but not in solid lesions (61.5% vs 46.2%, P = .6951). Only in 1 case did cytology (adenocarcinoma) provide a more definitive diagnosis than surgical pathology (high-grade dysplasia cannot exclude adenocarcinoma).
conclusionsThe EUS-FNB/TTNB methods complement EUS-FNA cytology in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, and they often outperforms concurrent cytology specimens, particularly in cystic lesions.
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.