Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17659731›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2007

Evaluation of clinical relevance of examining K-ras, p16 and p53 mutations along with allelic losses at 9p and 18q in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration samples of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

C Salek, L Benesova, M Zavoral, V Nosek, L Kasperova, M Ryska, R Strnad, E Traboulsi, M Minarik

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Head mass in chronic pancreatitis: Inflammatory or malignant.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Advances in biomarker research for pancreatic cancer.Current pharmaceutical design · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C SalekLaboratory for Molecular Genetics and Oncology, Genomac International Ltd., Bavorska 856, 15541 Prague 5, Czech Republic.
L Benesova
M Zavoral
V Nosek
L Kasperova
M Ryska
R Strnad
E Traboulsi
M Minarik
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Molecular Genetics · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo establish an optimum combination of molecular markers resulting in best overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for evaluation of suspicious pancreatic mass.

methodsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA) was performed on 101 consecutive patients (63 males, 38 females, 60 +/- 12 years; 81 with subsequently diagnosed pancreatic cancer, 20 with chronic pancreatitis) with focal pancreatic mass. Samples were evaluated on-site by an experienced cytopathologist. DNA was extracted from Giemsa stained cells selected by laser microdissection and the presence of K-ras, p53 and p16 somatic mutations was tested by cycling-gradient capillary electrophoresis (CGCE) and single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) techniques. In addition, allelic losses of tumor suppressor genes p16 (INK4, CDKN2A) and DPC4 (MADH4, SMAD4) were detected by monitoring the loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at 9p and 18q, respectively.

resultsSensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided FNA were 75% and 85%, positive and negative predictive value reached 100%. The remaining 26% samples were assigned as inconclusive. Testing of molecular markers revealed sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 100% for K-ras mutations (P < 0.001), 24% and 90% for p53 mutations (NS), 13% and 100% for p16 mutations (NS), 85% and 64% for allelic losses at 9p (P < 0.001) and 78% and 57% for allelic losses at 18q (P < 0.05). When tests for different molecular markers were combined, the best results were obtained with K-ras + LOH at 9p (92% and 64%, P < 0.001), K-ras + LOH at 18q (92% and 57%, P < 0.001), and K-ras + LOH 9q + LOH 18q (96% and 43%, P < 0.001). When the molecular markers were used as complements to FNA cytology to evaluate inconclusive samples only, the overall sensitivity of cancer detection was 100% in all patients enrolled in the study.

conclusionEUS-guided FNA cytology combined with screening of K-ras mutations and allelic losses of tumor suppressors p16 and DPC4 represents a very sensitive approach in screening for pancreatic malignancy. Molecular markers may find its use particularly in cases where FNA cytology has been inconclusive.

Indexed as

Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18Chromosomes, Human, Pair 9EndosonographyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16Electrophoresis, CapillaryFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansLoss of HeterozygosityMaleBiomarkers, TumorCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Smad4 ProteinSMAD4 protein, humanTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID17659731
PMCPMC4250643
OpenAlexW2113601196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.