FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2008700511> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2008700511 endingPage "3069" @default.
• W2008700511 startingPage "3068" @default.
• W2008700511 abstract "Despite the extensive use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), there still exists a wide variation in the number of samples required to ensure acquisition of diagnostic material from pancreatic lesions. Although multiple passes can be performed during EUSFNA, prolonging the procedure likely increases risk, decreases procedural efficiency, and increases the probability of samples being tainted with blood. It has been 21 years since EUS-FNA was used to obtain pancreatic tissue for cytologic analysis [1, 2], 16 years since the publication of the first reports evaluating the clinical impact and staging of pancreatic lesions sampled by EUSFNA [3], and 14 years since the publication of the initial reports of the evaluation of the number of passes needed to obtain a diagnostic yield and the significance of on-site cytopathology during the procedure [4–7]. During this time, the focus has been on determining the necessity of on-site cytopathologic evaluation, the optimal number of needle passes, and the most effective needle type used for tissue acquisition. Despite numerous studies addressing these issues, many endoscopists are still perplexed about the nature of the best practices needed to ensure optimal results, in particular with regard to the need for on-site cytopathology for skilled and experienced endosonographers practicing at a high-volume center. To date, multiple meta-analyses have confirmed the diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, accuracy, and safety of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions [8–12]. Moreover, structured literature reviews have concluded that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) improves diagnostic accuracy [8, 9]. Notwithstanding these considerable successes, ongoing refinements to EUS-FNA continue to be explored. Regardless of the likelihood that increasing numbers of passes raises the risk of needle failure, tissue injury, postprocedural complications, and medical expenses, the endosonographer is caught between the need to provide adequate tissue needed to optimize diagnostic yield weighed against the cost and risk of making additional passes. Failed EUS-FNA often engenders additional risk and expense due to the need to repeat EUS or to obtain tissue with radiologic or surgical guidance. Moreover, as treatment options for pancreatic cancer advance, rendering an onsite diagnosis alone may not be adequate, since additional tissue may be required to perform ancillary studies and molecular mapping. Nevertheless, ROSE may not be financially viable due to excess time commitment, limited resources, relatively low reimbursements, and acceptable adequacy rates achieved by more experienced endosonographers. In order to have a sustainable EUS practice with optimal clinical outcomes, it may be beneficial to provide some degree of ROSE training for endosonographers incorporating the ‘‘fanning’’ FNA technique combined with an algorithmic approach to needle selection [13–15]. In this issue of Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Schmidt et al. [16] examined current practices of lesion sampling, weighing diagnostic accuracy against the probability of adverse events in the presence and absence of ROSE. The authors provide empirical data regarding the diagnostic yield and performance characteristics of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions using mathematical modeling to determine the likelihood of adverse events with a fixed number of passes (no-ROSE) versus a variable number of passes (ROSE) while controlling for other variables. Schmidt and colleagues used a discrete-event simulation model to conclude that ROSE reduces the number of passes, thereby reducing the S. Hebert-Magee R. H. Hawes S. Varadarajulu (&) Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, 601 East Rollins Street, Orlando, FL 32803, USA e-mail: svaradarajulu@yahoo.com" @default.
• W2008700511 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2008700511 creator A5045645161 @default.
• W2008700511 creator A5053979995 @default.
• W2008700511 creator A5072635774 @default.
• W2008700511 date "2013-08-08" @default.
• W2008700511 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2008700511 title "Is It Time to Take a Pass on the Increased Number of Passes in EUS-FNA?" @default.
• W2008700511 cites W1547658751 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W1593959916 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W1985113511 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2004185728 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2012503933 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2014082879 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2025059278 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2034509352 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2043752683 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2054473915 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2057779735 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2061269695 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2064484692 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2088491379 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2091865394 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2093055339 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2167791366 @default.
• W2008700511 cites W2325343990 @default.
• W2008700511 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-2818-3" @default.
• W2008700511 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925822" @default.
• W2008700511 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2008700511 type Work @default.
• W2008700511 sameAs 2008700511 @default.
• W2008700511 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2008700511 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2008700511 hasAuthorship W2008700511A5045645161 @default.
• W2008700511 hasAuthorship W2008700511A5053979995 @default.
• W2008700511 hasAuthorship W2008700511A5072635774 @default.
• W2008700511 hasBestOaLocation W20087005111 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C2909339193 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C41260117 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C126322002 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C2909339193 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C41260117 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C61434518 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C71924100 @default.
• W2008700511 hasConceptScore W2008700511C90924648 @default.
• W2008700511 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2008700511 hasLocation W20087005111 @default.
• W2008700511 hasLocation W20087005112 @default.
• W2008700511 hasOpenAccess W2008700511 @default.
• W2008700511 hasPrimaryLocation W20087005111 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2020795165 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2032899420 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2043204642 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2061368259 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2094296598 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2119400625 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2229781881 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2319772729 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W2996818438 @default.
• W2008700511 hasRelatedWork W1990539888 @default.
• W2008700511 hasVolume "58" @default.
• W2008700511 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2008700511 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2008700511 magId "2008700511" @default.
• W2008700511 workType "article" @default.