BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Home / Archive / Volume 18, Issue 2
  • This Article
Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article
CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article
Academic Rules and Norms of This Article
Citation of this article
Corresponding Author of This Article
Research Domain of This Article
Article-Type of This Article
Open-Access Policy of This Article
Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article
Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article
  • Total Article Views (2)
All Articles published online
The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-5) series.
Item 
Count 
PDF1
HTML24
Figures (1-1)0
Tables (1-5)0
 Sum=25
Publishing Process of This Article
The chart showing Browse series, Download series.
Item 
Count 
Browse5
Download10
 Sum=15
Feb 16, 2026 (publication date) through Feb 4, 2026
Times Cited of This Article
  • Times Cited  (0)
Journal Information of This Article
Publication Name
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
ISSN
1948-5190
Publisher of This Article
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Feb 16, 2026; 18(2): 113699
Published online Feb 16, 2026. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v18.i2.113699
Table 1 Demographics and clinical features of patients, n (%)
Variables
Total (n = 77)
Age1, mean ± SD54.4 ± 14.1 (range: 22-87 years)
Gender
Male43 (55.8)
Female34 (44.2)
Previous history of malignancy
Yes17 (22.1)
No60 (77.9)
Symptom status
Yes63 (81.8)
No14 (18.2)
Duration of symptoms1, mean ± SD76.6 ± 69.2 (range: 3-305 days)
Clinical presentation
Abdominal pain20 (26.0)
Shortness of breath/dyspnea15 (19.5)
Jaundice12 (15.6)
Cough11 (14.3)
Weight loss9 (11.7)
Vomiting8 (10.4)
Fever8 (10.4)
Others18 (23.4)
1Percentages are presented in columns.
Full Size Table
Table 2 Diagnostic modalities including endoscopic ultrasonography details, n (%)
Variables
Total (n = 77)
Initial diagnostic modality
CT scan61 (79.2)
PET CT16 (20.8)
Indication of EUS based on initial diagnostic findings
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy28 (36.4)
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy with esophageal/gastric/duodenal lesion8 (10.4)
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy with liver deposit/gall bladder/pancreatic mass15 (19.5)
Mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy/with liver deposits/pulmonary nodules17 (22.1)
Para-aortic lymphadenopathy/with esophageal lesion4 (5.2)
Porta hepatis lymphadenopathy/with breast/gastric/duodenal lesion5 (6.5)
Characteristics of lymph nodes/Lesion/mass
Size of lymph node1, mean ± SD1.9 ± 0.8 (range: 0.7-3.6 cm)
Size of lesion/mass1, mean ± SD5.9 ± 2.4 (range: 1.3 -9.4 cm)
EUS procedural duration1, mean ± SD28.1 ± 18.9 minutes
Needle type
22G74 (96.1)
25G3 (3.9)
Number of “needle” passes, mean ± SD2.1 ± 0.8
116 (20.8)
238 (49.4)
320 (26.0)
42 (2.6)
51 (1.3)
EUS diagnostic adequacy
Sufficient to conclude diagnosis73 (94.8)
Not sufficient to conclude4 (5.2)
EUS procedure-related complications
No77 (100.0)
1Percentages are presented in columns.
CT: Computed tomography; PET: Positron emission computed tomography; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound.
Full Size Table
Table 3 Diagnosis, management plan, and survival status of patients, n (%)
Variables
Total (n = 77)1
EUS-FNB specimen
Mediastinal lesion/with esophageal/gastric lesion16 (20.8)
Mediastinal LN/with esophageal/pancreatic/spleenic mass42 (54.5)
Para-aortic mass/with gastric/duodenal lesion7 (9.1)
Porta hepatis LN/with gastric/duodenal/Liver/pancreatic lesion12 (15.6)
EUS-FNB tissue nature
Benign45 (58.4)
Malignant32 (41.6)
Definitive tissue diagnosis
Malignant
Lymphoma9 (11.7)
Adenocarcinoma8 (10.4)
Squamous cell carcinoma8 (10.4)
Metastatic carcinoma4 (5.2)
NETs/non-small cell carcinoma5 (6.5)
Benign
Anthracotic/silicotic nodule4 (5.2)
Esophageal candidiasis/gastritis 2 (2.6)
Sarcoidosis8 (10.4)
TB11 (14.3)
Reactive lymphoid tissue
16 (20.8)
Thymoma/solitary fibrous tumor2 (2.6)
Treatment
Anti-TB drugs10 (13.0)
Chemotherapy14 (18.2)
Conservative therapy22 (28.6)
Steroids/immunosuppressive therapy3 (3.9)
Palliative care5 (6.5)
PEG tube placement 3 (3.9)
Radiation therapy3 (3.9)
Surgical resection3 (3.9)
No treatment14 (18.2)
Patient’s outcome
Survived53 (68.8)
Deceased10 (13.0)
Loss to follow-up/LAMA14 (18.2)
1Percentages are presented in columns.
EUS-FNB: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy; LN: Lymph node; NET: Neuroendocrine tumor; TB: Tuberculosis; LAMA: Leave against medical advice.
Full Size Table
Table 4 The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for mediastinal lesions/mass, n (%)1
EUS-FNB tissue natureDefinitive tissue diagnosis
TotalP value
Benign
Malignant
Benign41 (91.9)4 (8.9)45 (58.4)< 0.001
Malignant 0 (0.0)32 (100.0)32 (41.6)
Total41 (53.2)36 (46.8)77 (100.0)
1Percentages are presented in columns.
EUS-FNB: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy.
Full Size Table
Table 5 Comparison of clinical, diagnostic, and procedural variables between patients with benign and malignant endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy tissue nature, n (%)
VariablesEUS-FNB tissue nature
P value
Benign
Malignant
Age1, mean ± SD52.8 ± 15.156.7 ± 12.50.238
Gender
Male25 (55.6)18 (56.3)0.952
Female20 (44.4)14 (43.8)
Previous history of malignancy
Yes11 (24.4)6 (18.8)0.553
No34 (75.6)26 (81.3)
Symptom status
Yes38 (84.4)25 (78.1)0.479
No7 (15.6)7 (21.9)
Duration of symptoms1, mean ± SD83.5 ± 75.562.1 ± 54.60.431
Initial diagnostic modality
CT scan35 (77.8)26 (71.2)0.502
PET CT10 (22.2)6 (18.8)
Indication of EUS based on initial diagnostic findings
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy20 (44.4)8 (25.0)0.254
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy with esophageal/gastric/duodenal lesion6 (13.3)2 (6.3)
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy with liver deposit/gall bladder/pancreatic mass7 (15.6)8 (25.0)
Mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy/with liver deposits/pulmonary nodules9 (20.0)8 (25.0)
Para-aortic lymphadenopathy/with esophageal lesion1 (2.2)3 (9.4)
Porta hepatis lymphadenopathy/with breast/gastric/duodenal lesion2 (4.4)3 (9.4)
Size of lymph node1, mean ± SD1.57 ± 0.62.3 ± 0.90.009
Size of lesion/mass, median (interquartile range)4.2 (2.6)7.8 (3.4)0.001
EUS procedural duration1, mean ± SD29.6 ± 20.925.8 ± 16.10.573
Number of “needle” passes
18 (17.8)8 (25.0)0.490
222 (48.9)16 (50.0)
314 (31.1)6 (18.8)
41 (2.2)1 (3.1)
50 (0.0)1 (3.1)
EUS diagnostic adequacy
Sufficient to conclude diagnosis41 (91.1)32 (100.0)0.137
Not sufficient to conclude4 (8.9)0 (0.0)
EUS-FNB specimen
Mediastinal lesion/with esophageal/gastric lesion8 (17.8)8 (25.0)0.842
Mediastinal LN/with esophageal/
pancreatic/spleenic mass		25 (55.6)17 (53.1)
Para-aortic mass/with gastric/duodenal lesion4 (8.9)3 (9.4)
Porta hepatis LN/with gastric/duodenal/Liver/pancreatic lesion8 (17.8)4 (12.5)
Treatment
Anti-TB drugs8 (17.8)2 (6.3)< 0.001
Chemotherapy2 (4.4)12 (37.5)
Conservative therapy21 (46.7)1 (3.1)
Steroids/immunosuppressive therapy3 (6.7)0 (0.0)
Palliative care2 (4.4)3 (9.4)
PEG tube placement 2 (4.4)1 (3.1)
Radiation therapy0 (0.0)3 (9.4)
Surgical resection2 (4.4)1 (3.1)
No treatment5 (11.1)9 (28.1)
Patient’s outcome
Survived35 (77.8)18 (56.3)0.104
Deceased5 (11.1)5 (15.6)
Loss to follow-up/LAMA5 (11.1)9 (28.1)
1Percentages are presented in columns.
CT: Computed tomography; PET: Positron emission computed tomography; EUS-FNB: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy; LN: Lymph node; NET: Neuroendocrine tumor; TB: Tuberculosis; PEG: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; LAMA: Leave against medical advice.
Full Size Table
Write to the Help Desk
© 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

California Corporate Number: 3537345