ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2014
Mutational analysis of cytocentrifugation supernatant fluid from pancreatic solid mass lesions.
Article in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Tumor DNA in Bronchoscopic Fluids in Peripheral NSCLC: A Proof-of-Concept Study.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- The basics of commonly used molecular techniques for diagnosis, and application of molecular testing in cytology.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2023Review
- Tumor-Derived Exosomal RNA From Fine-Needle Aspiration Supernatant as a Novel Liquid Biopsy for Molecular Diagnosis of Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Article
- Liquid Biopsy of Non-Plasma Body Fluids in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Look Closer to the Tumor!Cells · 2020Review
- Salvaging the supernatant: next generation cytopathology for solid tumor mutation profiling.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018Article
- Germline Mutation of the CCK Receptor: A Novel Biomarker for Pancreas Cancer.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of fine-needle aspirations of pancreatic solid masses is complicated by many factors that keep its false-negative rate high. Our novel approach analyzes cell-free cytocentrifugation supernatant, currently a discarded portion of the specimen. Supernatant and cytology slides were collected from 25 patients: 11 cases with confirmed outcome [five positive (adenocarcinoma) and six negative (inflammatory states)], plus 14 without confirmed outcomes. Slides were microdissected, DNA was extracted from microdissections and corresponding supernatants, and all were analyzed for KRAS point mutation and loss of heterozygosity. Notably, higher levels of free DNA were found in supernatants than in corresponding microdissected cells. Supernatants contained sufficient DNA for mutational profiling even when samples contained few to no cells. Mutations were present in 5/5 malignancies and no mutations were present in inflammatory states. In conclusion, these findings support using supernatant for mutational genotyping when diagnostic confirmation is required for pancreatic solid masses.
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.