Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 16;14(3):129–141. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i3.129

Table 2.

Association between different additional performed techniques vs a positive observed agreement for malignancy diagnosis among endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-related techniques vs 24-mo follow-up [OR (95%CI; P value)]

 Univariate analysis 1
Multivariate analysis 1
EUS alone (n = 47) 0.066 (0.025-0.157; < 0.001)
EUS-FNA (n = 21) 2.409 (0.905-7.182; 0.091)
CE-EUS (n = 20) 1.694 (0.642-4.811; 0.298)
Cystoscopy (n = 27) 4.950 (1.862-15.695; 0.003) 0.622 (0.125-2.813; 0.541)
mFB (n = 36) 6.625 (2.667-19.024; < 0.001) 3.425 (1.104-11.682; 0.038)
nCLE (n = 44) 10.489 (4.242-30.125; < 0.001) 8.441 (2.698-33.081; < 0.001)
1

Positive observed agreement: In 70/129 (54.3%) there was a positive agreement between endoscopic ultrasound vs 24-mo follow-up for a malignant and non-malignant diagnosis.

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; EUS-FNA: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; Cystoscopy: Fiberoptic probe cystoscopy; nCLE: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle-based confocal laser-endomicroscopy; mFB: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle direct intracystic micro forceps biopsy; CE-EUS: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound.