ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Enhancing the Diagnostic Performance of Repeated Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Combined with Surrogate Repeated Endoscopic Retrograde Pancreatography for Small Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDiagnosing pancreatic tumors ≤ 10 mm is challenging due to limited visualization and low sampling sensitivity. This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative diagnostic performance of repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) and surrogate repeated endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP).
methodsThis study analyzed 40 patients with suspected pancreatic tumors ≤ 10 mm who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERP retrospectively. When a diagnosis could not be determined based on the initial EUS-TA or ERP procedure, EUS-TA or ERP was repeated as necessary. The cumulative diagnostic performance of EUS-TA and ERP for pancreatic tumors was evaluated.
resultsEUS-TA was performed once for 35 cases, twice for seven cases, and three times for one case. ERP was performed for 15 cases, and the median number of ERP attempts was two (range, 1-8). The cumulative sensitivity of EUS-TA increased from 56.7% to 70.0% after three attempts, while ERP sensitivity increased from 54.5% to 72.7% after two attempts. The cumulative diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-TA and ERP combined by case included sensitivity and accuracy rates of 87.9% and 90.0%. When limited to pancreatic cancer, the sensitivity and accuracy rates were 95.8% and 96.8%, respectively. No severe adverse events occurred.
conclusionRepeated EUS-TA and ERP showed good diagnostic sensitivity for small pancreatic cancers ≤ 10 mm. When malignancy is suspected but not confirmed by a single procedure, repeating both may be an option in selected cases. Performing EUS-TA and ERP at least twice may be reasonable when small pancreatic cancer is suspected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40913724What 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.