Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30361898›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2020

Comparison of Native Aspirates and Cytological Smears Obtained by EUS-Guided Biopsies for Effective DNA/RNA Marker Testing in Pancreatic Cancer.

Lucie Benesova, Tereza Halkova, Bohus Bunganic, Barbora Belsanova, Miroslav Zavoral, Eva Traboulsi, Marek Minarik

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lucie BenesovaCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Tereza HalkovaCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Bohus BunganicDepartment of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Barbora BelsanovaCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Miroslav ZavoralDepartment of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Eva TraboulsiPathology department, Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic.
Marek MinarikCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic. mminarik@email.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0615-6116
Charles University · CZGenomac · CZMilitary University Hospital Prague · CZ

Funding

Ministerstvo Obrany (CZ) MO1012Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky 16-31028A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compare two types of pancreatic carcinoma samples obtained by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in terms of the success rates and clinical validity of analysis of two most commonly investigated DNA/RNA pancreatic cancer markers, KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. 118 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent EUS-FNB. The collected sample was divided, one part was stored in a stabilizing solution as native aspirate (EUS-FNA) and second part was processed into the cytological smear (EUS-FNC). DNA/RNA extraction was followed by analysis of KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. For both sample types, the yields of DNA/RNA extraction and success rates of KRAS mutation and miRNA expression were evaluated. Finally, the resulting KRAS mutation frequency and miR-21 prognostic role were compared to literature data from tissue resections. The overall amount of isolated DNA/RNA from EUS-FNC was lower compared to the EUS-FNA, average yield 10 ng vs 147 ng for DNA and average yield 164 vs. 642 ng for RNA, but the success rates for KRAS and miR-21 analysis was 100% for both sample types. The KRAS-mutant detection frequency in EUS-FNC was 12% higher than in EUS-FNA (90 vs 78%). The prognostic role of miR-21 was confirmed in EUS-FNC (p = 0.02), but did not reach statistical significance in EUS-FNA (p = 0.06). Although both types of EUS-FNB samples are suitable for DNA/RNA extraction and subsequent DNA mutation and miRNA expression analysis, reliable results with clinical validity were only obtained for EUS-FNC.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCytodiagnosisDNAEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationFemaleHumansMaleMicroRNAsMiddle AgedMutationPancreatic NeoplasmsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Specimen HandlingTissue FixationBiomarkers, TumorDNAKRAS protein, humanMicroRNAsMIRN21 microRNA, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)EUS-FNAKRASmiR-21Pancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID30361898
OpenAlexW2898234390

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.