ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
EUS-FNA improves diagnosis of extraluminal anastomotic recurrence after surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly diagnosis of extraluminal locoregional recurrence (LRR) near the anastomosis after surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies is challenging. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and an integrated diagnostic pathway in this context.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent EUS at our hospital between April 2014 and April 2025 for suspected extraluminal LRR. We collected clinical, procedural, and pathological data. Each patient had at least 6 months of clinical-imaging follow-up. The final diagnosis was based on pathology (surgical or EUS-FNA) or confirmed disease progression and served as the reference standard for calculating diagnostic performance.
resultsSeventy-seven patients were included. EUS identified suspicious extraluminal lesions in 37 patients; 35 of these underwent EUS-FNA. EUS alone demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.6% (95% CI 81.8-99.3%), specificity of 95.0% (95% CI 83.1-99.4%), and accuracy of 94.8%. The corresponding values for EUS-FNA were 93.9% (95% CI 79.8-99.3%), 100.0% (95% CI 15.8-100.0%), and 94.3%, respectively, while the integrated diagnostic strategy achieved 89.2% (95% CI 74.6-97.0%), 100.0% (95% CI 91.2-100.0%), and 94.8%, respectively. The subgroup analysis showed the high sensitivity of EUS-FNA in all recurrence patterns, tumor types, and anastomotic sites (≥ 83.3%). According to the surgical pathological findings of the primary tumor, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients with elevated-risk (57.1% vs 23.8%; OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.38-13.2; P = 0.011), but EUS-FNA still achieved a sensitivity of 92.9%.
conclusionsCombining EUS with selective EUS-FNA provides an accurate and safe strategy for detecting extraluminal LRR. This approach uses EUS's high sensitivity for lesions and definitive pathology from EUS-FNA, significantly enhancing the accuracy of postoperative surveillance for extraluminal anastomotic LRR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481839What 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.