ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound versus indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for sentinel and lymph node metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sentinel lymph nodes and lymph node metastases in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) seriously affect prognosis. In order to improve the accuracy of lymph node assessment during surgery, it is crucial to explore advanced imaging techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) versus indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for sentinel lymph node metastasis (SLNM) and lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with CRC. Methods: A total of 120 patients with CRC admitted to our hospital from March 2022 to December 2023 were included in this retrospective study and, according to the detection method, they were divided into ICG group (ICG fluorescence imaging group, n=50) and control group (EUS group, n=70). The general data of patients, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ICG imaging for the diagnosis of SLNM and LNM in patients with CRC were statistically compared between the two groups using gold standard postoperative pathology reports. Area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic value of ICG fluorescence imaging for SLNM and LNM in patients with CRC. Results: For diagnosing SLNM in CRC patients, ICG fluorescence imaging achieved sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of 94.44%, 93.75%, and 94.00%, respectively, significantly outperforming EUS, which achieved sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of 40.74%, 69.77%, and 58.58% respectively. For LNM diagnosis, ICG fluorescence imaging showed sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of 80.00%, 92.5%, and 90.00%, compared to 28.57%, 71.43%, and 62.86% for EUS. The area under curve (AUC) of ICG for LNM in patients with CRC was 0.932 with an optimal cut-off value of 0.77, achieving sensitivities and specificities of 95.45% and 81.82%. Conclusions: In the assessment of SLNM and LNM in patients with CRC, ICG fluorescence imaging is proven to be more valuable than EUS.
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.