A268 PREOPERATIVE EUS-GUIDED FNA IS ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER OVERALL SURVIVAL IN RESECTABLE PANCREATIC CANCER WHEN COMPARED TO UPFRONT SURGERY WITHOUT PREOPERATIVE TISSUE ACQUISITION: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard of care in advanced pancreatic cancer. In resectable disease, preoperative EUS-FNA can help to identify benign etiology and other cancers while preventing unnecessary surgery. However, concerns regarding tumor seeding and pancreatitis have led some experts to advocate for upfront surgery without tissue sampling. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks and benefits of performing pre-operative EUS-FNA in patients with suspected, resectable pancreatic cancer. Methods A literature search was performed up to April 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases with terms specified for pancreatic neoplasm and FNA. All fully published adult studies that compared preoperative EUS-FNA to EUS without FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer for short- and long-term outcomes were included. Results were reported as Odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity, publication bias and quality of studies were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include cancer free survival, tumor recurrence and seeding, and post FNA adverse events. Results An initial search yielded 2814 citations. Six retrospective studies were included with 1155 patients in the EUS-FNA group vs 2067 patients in the comparator group. Overall survival was reported in three studies (n=2701: 796 EUS-FNA, 1905 non-FNA). Patients with preoperative EUS-FNA had better overall survival compared to the non-FNA group (WMD, 4.40 months [0.02 to 8.78]). In adenocarcinoma patients (2 studies, n=2050), there was no significant difference in overall survival (WMD, 2.94 months [-3.87 to 9.74]). Cancer-free survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD, 2.08 months [-2.22 to 6.38]). Moreover, EUS with FNA was not associated with increased rates of tumor recurrence (OR, 0.55 [0.30–1.02]) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (OR, 0.81 [0.56–1.18]). Post-FNA pancreatitis was rare (1.7%), with all patients treated conservatively. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings across the different outcomes tested. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, preoperative EUS-FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer was associated with significantly greater overall survival when compared to the non-FNA group with no significant difference in rate of tumour recurrence and/or peritoneal seeding. These findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the included studies; randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".