ArticleJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)2012
Differentiation of multiple types of pancreatico-biliary tumors by molecular analysis of clinical specimens.
Article in Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined analysis of a serum mRNA/miRNA marker signature and CA 19-9 for timely and accurate diagnosis of recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A prospective multicenter cohort study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Efficient cross-validation traversals in feature subset selection.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- A multistep high-content screening approach to identify novel functionally relevant target genes in pancreatic cancer.PloS one · 2015Article
- [Will molecular diagnostics become established in pancreatic pathology?].Der Pathologe · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely and accurate diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is critical in order to provide adequate treatment to patients. However, the clinical signs and symptoms of PDAC are shared by several types of malignant or benign tumors which may be difficult to differentiate from PDAC with conventional diagnostic procedures. Among others, these include ampullary cancers, solid pseudopapillary tumors, and adenocarcinomas of the distant bile duct, as well as inflammatory masses developing in chronic pancreatitis. Here, we report an approach to accurately differentiate between these different types of pancreatic masses based on molecular analysis of biopsy material. A total of 156 bulk tissue and fine needle aspiration biopsy samples were analyzed using a dedicated diagnostic cDNA array and a composite classification algorithm developed based on linear support vector machines. All five histological subtypes of pancreatic masses were clearly separable with 100% accuracy when using all 156 individual samples for classification. Generalized performance of the classification system was tested by 10 × 10-fold cross validation (100 test runs). Correct classification into the five diagnostic groups was demonstrated for 81.5% of 1,560 test set predictions. Performance increased to 85.3% accuracy when PDAC and distant bile duct carcinomas were combined in a single diagnostic class. Importantly, overall sensitivity of detection of malignant disease was 92.2%. The molecular diagnostic approach presented here is suitable to significantly aid in the differential diagnosis of undetermined pancreatic masses. To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting accurate differentiation between several types of pancreatico-biliary tumors in a single molecular analytical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.