ArticleCureus2024
Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging and Vascular Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen with contrast stands as the gold standard for assessing pancreatic cancer, encompassing both staging and vascular analysis. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) scans due to factors such as contrast agent allergies, pregnancy, renal impairment, radiation risks, and limited tissue sampling capability in CECT scans of the abdomen. In light of these challenges, this study evaluated the diagnostic capabilities of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) compared to CECT for staging and vascular assessment of pancreatic cancer. Methods Fifty patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer underwent evaluations using both CECT scans and EUS, focusing on staging and vascular invasion assessment. Vascular evaluation was carried out using a categorization system based on EUS findings, classifying them into three types based on the tumor-vessel relationship: Type 1 indicating clear invasion or encasement of a vessel by a tumor or contact with a vessel wall exceeding 180 degrees, Type 2 representing abutment, wherein a tumor contacts a vessel wall but at an angle less than 180 degrees, and Type 3 implying clear non-invasion, where a discernible distance exists between a tumor and a vessel. In this categorization, Type 1 and Type 2 indicated signs of vascular invasion, while Type 3 indicated vascular non-invasion. These findings were subsequently compared to the results from CECT scans. The endoscopist performing EUS was blinded to the CT outcomes prior to the examination. Results Regarding pancreatic cancer staging, EUS exhibited remarkable sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of 100% according to the T criterion.As for vascular invasion assessment, EUS demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%, 95.93%, and 96%, respectively, for venous invasion. For arterial invasion, the figures were 95.65% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and an overall accuracy of 99.5%. Conclusion EUS is an effective modality for evaluating both staging and vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer, boasting exceptional sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates. The findings are robust enough to consider EUS a viable alternative to CT scans in evaluation, with the added advantage of EUS offering tissue sampling capability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.