ArticleDEN open2027
Comparative Diagnostic Sensitivity of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Versus Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in DEN open, 2027. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Accurate histological differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is essential for selecting appropriate treatment. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is increasingly used for focal liver lesions; however, comparative data on its diagnostic sensitivity for HCC and ICC remain limited. This study compared the diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-TA for these malignancies. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent EUS-TA for focal liver lesions and were ultimately diagnosed with HCC or ICC between 2016 and 2024. Patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were excluded. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic sensitivity. Secondary outcomes were cytological sensitivity and procedure-related adverse events. Results: Forty-five patients were included (HCC, Conclusions: EUS-TA demonstrated high diagnostic sensitivity for both HCC and ICC without procedure-related adverse events. However, diagnostic sensitivity, particularly cytological sensitivity, was lower in HCC, consistent with the known pathological characteristics of HCC and the established role of histological evaluation in its diagnosis.
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.