Figure 1. (A) KPC pancreas sample placed on Novascan's electrode array for a series of spectral bioimpedance measurements. A zoom in of the electrode with a pancreas sample is also shown. White rectangles indicate multiple locations measured across the sample. Spectral impedance scans for a control mouse (B) and a KPC mouse (C). The examination of CRF peak properties was used for cancer identification in pancreas samples. For the control mouse the CRF peaks fall below the threshold of 1 MHz, determining no cancer. For the KPC mouse several scans have CRF peaks above the threshold of 1 MHz, determining cancer presence.
alternative method for sample collections in PCLs. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis on the studies that compared EUS-FNA and EUS-TTNB for adequate sampling and diagnostic accuracy in patients with PCLs. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of the databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 10th, 2022. We considered randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. We excluded abstracts, animal studies, case reports, reviews, editorials, and letters to editors. The primary outcome was sample adequacy which is defined as the presence of enough sample for histopathological evaluation. The secondary outcome was sample accuracy which is defined as the ability to have a definite diagnosis. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A p value , 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I 2 index. Results: Nine observational studies involving 520 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-TTNB group compared to the EUS-FNA group (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19-2.26, p 50.003, I 2 5 95%) (Figure 1A). Only four studies compared the accuracy rate between the EUS-TTNB method and the EUS-FNA group. The diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-TTNB group compared to the EUS-FNA group (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.13-3.65, p 5 0.02, I 2 5 87%) (Figure 1B). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the rates of both sample adequacy and accuracy were higher in the EUS-TTNB group compared to the EUS-FNA group. EUS-TTNB should be considered where applicable clinically for improving the diagnostic yield in patients undergoing evaluation of PCLs. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.[0046] Figure 1. a) sample adequacy rate b) diagnostic accuracy rate S47 Presentation, Management, and Outcomes in Patients With Concomitant Acute Pancreatitis and Acute Kidney Injury
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.