Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494669›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

K-ras mutation analysis of residual liquid-based cytology specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration improves cell block diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Yoko Sekita-Hatakeyama, Takeshi Nishikawa, Mao Takeuchi, Kouhei Morita, Maiko Takeda, Kinta Hatakeyama, Tokiko Nakai, Tomoko Uchiyama, Hiroe Itami, Tomomi Fujii and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Diagnostic Efficacy of Cell Block and Liquid-Based Cytology for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Tumors.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Cancers · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yoko Sekita-HatakeyamaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Takeshi NishikawaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Mao TakeuchiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Kouhei MoritaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Maiko TakedaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Kinta HatakeyamaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7729-1836
Tokiko NakaiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Tomoko UchiyamaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Hiroe ItamiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Tomomi FujiiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Akira MitoroThird Department of Internal Medicine, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Masayuki ShoDepartment of Surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Chiho OhbayashiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Nara Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) technology is widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses. However, in some cases, inadequate tissue volume or difficulty of morphological diagnosis are constraining factors for adequate cytopathological evaluation. K-ras mutation is the most frequently acquired genetic abnormality, occurring in approximately 90% of all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the present study, the clinical utility of residual liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens obtained using EUS-FNA for K-ras mutation analysis was evaluated.

methodsIn this study, 81 patients with pancreatic lesions were examined. The cell block (CB) specimens separated from EUS-FNA samples were morphologically evaluated by hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining. Final diagnoses were confirmed by CB specimens, surgical resection specimens, diagnostic imaging, and clinical follow-up. Genomic DNA of residual LBC specimens stored at 4°C for several months were extracted and assessed for K-ras mutations using a fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based preferential homoduplex formation assay.

resultsK-ras mutation analysis using residual LBC samples was successful in all cases. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CB examination alone were 77.4%, 100%, and 81.3%, respectively, and those of the combination of CB examination and K-ras mutation analysis were 90.3%, 92.3%, and 90.7%, respectively. Furthermore, K-ras mutations were detected in 8 (57.1%) of 14 PDAC samples for which the CB results were inconclusive.

conclusionThese findings suggest that K-ras mutation analysis using residual LBC specimens improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDNA Mutational AnalysisEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationFemaleFluorescence Resonance Energy TransferHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationPancreatic NeoplasmsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Sensitivity and SpecificityKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

PMID29494669
PMCPMC5832306
OpenAlexW2789681386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.