Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20864634›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2010

Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis and FISH for detecting pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology specimens collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Benjamin R Kipp, Emily G Barr Fritcher, Amy C Clayton, Gregory J Gores, Lewis R Roberts, Jun Zhang, Michael J Levy, Kevin C Halling

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Tiny but mighty: use of next generation sequencing on discarded cytocentrifuged bile duct brushing specimens to increase sensitivity of cytological diagnosis.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  17. The mitogenome of freshwater loachEcology and evolution · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin R KippDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Emily G Barr Fritcher
Amy C Clayton
Gregory J Gores
Lewis R Roberts
Jun Zhang
Michael J Levy
Kevin C Halling
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatobiliary tract strictures result either from malignancies of the biliary tract and pancreas or from nonmalignant etiopathogenesis. The goal of this study was to determine whether KRAS mutations could be identified in residual pancreatobiliary stricture brushings and to compare the performance characteristics of KRAS mutation analysis to cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of carcinoma. Residual brushing cytology cell pellets were retrieved from 132 patients with subsequent clinicopathologic follow-up of cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 35), gallbladder cancer (n = 2), and nonmalignant strictures (n = 54). All specimens had a prior cytology and FISH UroVysion results as part of clinical practice. KRAS mutation analysis was performed using the quantitative PCR DxS KRAS Mutation Test Kit. KRAS mutation analysis was successful in 130 of 132 specimens. KRAS mutations and polysomic (ie, positive) FISH results were identified in 24 (69%) and 22 (63%) pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens, respectively, with a combined sensitivity of 86% (30/35). KRAS mutations and polysomic FISH results were identified in 12 (29%) and 17 (41%) cholangiocarcinoma specimens, with a combined sensitivity of 54% (22/41). KRAS mutations were identified in two patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis, and benign follow-up. Residual cytology specimens can be used to detect KRAS mutations by quantitative PCR. Combined KRAS mutation and FISH analysis appear to increase the cancer detection rate in patients with pancreatobiliary strictures.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiliary Tract NeoplasmsCytodiagnosisDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMutationPancreatic NeoplasmsKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20864634
PMCPMC2963905
OpenAlexW1985478991

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.