ライフサイエンスコーパス: EUS-FNA

1 EUS FNA is more accurate for nodal staging and impacts o

2 EUS FNA resulting in a higher/worse stage than CT (41 pa

3 EUS FNA should be included in the preoperative staging a

4 EUS FNA was more sensitive (83% vs. 29%; P < 0.001) than

5 EUS-FNA accurately and safely evaluates solid peri-intes

6 EUS-FNA as a first test (after CT) has high diagnostic y

7 EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the

8 EUS-FNA established tissue diagnosis in 70% of cases.

9 EUS-FNA has good accuracy in PCLs < 3 cm.

10 EUS-FNA identified MRLN in 27 of 31 (87.1%) patients ult

11 EUS-FNA identified MRLN in27/31 (87.1%) patients ultimat

12 EUS-FNA is able to detect occult metastasis to the CLNs

13 EUS-FNA is effective for identifying MRLN in patients wi

14 EUS-FNA sampling was diagnostic in 72 of 92 cases (78.3%

15 EUS-FNA sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy was 92%,

16 EUS-FNA was also useful to diagnose benign cysts, possib

17 EUS-FNA was performed in 457 patients with 554 lesions.

18 EUS-FNA was significantly better than CT at detecting di

19 EUS-FNA with histology of the specimens is a sensitive a

20 EUS-FNA, CT, and positron emission tomography detected m

21 162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study.

22 ave a more indolent clinical course; and (3) EUS-FNA may be useful for the diagnosis and management o

23 performance characteristics of CT, EUS, and EUS FNA for preoperative nodal staging of esophageal car

24 , and tumor stage determined by CT, EUS, and EUS FNA were associated with treatment decisions (P < 0.

25 re prospectively evaluated with CT, EUS, and EUS FNA.

26 TBNA, EBUS-FNA, and EUS-FNA performed sequentially as a single combined proc

27 e role of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) in this setting is unclear.

28 , ultrasound-guided, fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy and were resected.

29 ic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of metastases to the pancreas.

30 ic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer is

31 opic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is recommended in pancreatic cystic lesions (PC

32 trasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting e

33 ic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) or ERCP brush cytology followed by surgery.

34 opic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain the preferred methods.

35 ic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was allowed as an alternative procedure.

36 ic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was evaluated as a single test for the diagnosi

37 ic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), currently considered the method of choice.

38 ic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), the most sensitive diagnostic method of PDAC i

39 ic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration [EUS-FNA]) is capable of sampling lymph nodes for PCR ana

40 graphy-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) permits cytological confirmation of EUS finding

41 confirmed in 32 (1.6%) cases, 30 of them by EUS-FNA, and 2 by surgery.

42 EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA), and the newest emerging application is EUS-gui

43 de novo symptomatic patients presenting for EUS-FNA.

44 on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohi

45 The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in man

46 Minimally invasive EUS-FNA with RT-PCR is capable of detecting expression o

47 The accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with previously failed biopsy proced

48 negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA with histology analysis of the specimens for dia

49 The combination of EUS-FNA and EBUS-FNA (EUS plus EBUS) had higher estimate

50 inal diagnosis was based on a combination of EUS-FNA, surgery and follow-up of minimum 6 months in ne

51 A multicenter prospective evaluation of EUS-FNA for primary diagnosis, staging, and/or follow-up

52 The performance of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was analy

53 Performance of EUS-FNA with PCF analysis for the detection of malignanc

54 The sensitivity of EUS-FNA for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is excellent (more

55 Limited data supports the utility of EUS-FNA for detection of MRLN in extrahepatic CCA, but t

56 ompare prospectively the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA samples obtained with slow-pull (SP) and with st

57 The diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA and CT for detection of metastases to the CLNs w

58 s, and fluorescence in-situ hybridization on EUS-FNA samples may increase the yield and prove to be b

59 ions for EUS, but most of the emphasis is on EUS-FNA and EUS-guided interventions.

60 in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain.

61 f 44 cases with resectable tumor on CT scan, EUS-FNA avoided thoracotomy in 14% of cases.

62 , while FDG-PET/CT may be more accurate than EUS-FNA and CT scan for predicting nodal status and comp

63 ng that FDG-PET/CT may be more accurate than EUS-FNA and CT scan for predicting nodal status and comp

64 Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, h

65 study of PCLs < 3 cm (2007-2016) undergoing EUS-FNA.

66 In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the ris

67 of previous extrapancreatic cancer underwent EUS-FNA from January/1997 to December/2010.

68 patients from the EBUS-TBNA group underwent EUS-FNA.

69 37 patients underwent EUS-FNA for probable pancreas metastases.

70 115 patients with PCLs < 3 cm who underwent EUS-FNA.

71 When EUS-FNA was compared with EUS size criteria in lymph nod

72 locoregional staging is best performed with EUS-FNA, with CT scan of the thorax and abdomen and FDG-

73 Mediastinal lymph nodes were sampled with EUS-FNA in patients with NSCLC and negative control subj