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.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Molecular roles of microRNA-21 and exosomal miR-21 in gastrointestinal cancers: diagnostic, therapeutic, and drug resistance insights.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Review
- Prognostic Role of SpecificGenes · 2024Article
- Diabetes Mellitus in Pancreatic Cancer: A Distinct Approach to Older Subjects with New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus.Cancers · 2023Review
- Optimization of pre-analytical and analytical steps for DNA and RNA analysis of fresh cytology samples.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Detection and Quantification of ctDNA for Longitudinal Monitoring of Treatment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Using a Universal Mutant Detection Assay by Denaturing Capillary Electrophoresis.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Article
- New era for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: From imaging to molecular pathology of pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.