ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2018
KRAS, NRAS and BRAF analysis of ampullary adenocarcinoma classified using CK7, CK20, MUC1 and MUC2.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rare, Yet Targetable: New Perspectives on Ampullary Carcinomas.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Identification of therapeutic targets in lung adenocarcinoma using Mendelian randomization and multi-omics.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Ampullary Adenocarcinoma: A Review of the Mutational Landscape and Implications for Treatment.Cancers · 2023Review
- Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Ampullary Adenocarcinoma with a NovelBiomedicines · 2023Article
- Targeted BRAF Inhibitor Therapy Induces Remission of Unresectable Ampullary Adenocarcinoma.ACG case reports journal · 2022Article
- USP8, USP48, and BRAF mutations differ in their genotype-phenotype correlation in Asian Indian patients with Cushing's disease.Endocrine · 2022Article
- Ampullary and pancreatic adenocarcinoma-a comparative study.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmpullary carcinomas are rare and dominated by adenocarcinomas. They account for only 0.5% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) with pancreaticobiliary (PB) histology has a worse outcome than that with intestinal (IT) histology. The mixed subtype contains the two epitheliums. This subclassification remains a challenge for pathologists and induces a reasonable level of disagreement. Genetic features of these subtypes are unclear. In this study, we aimed to reclassify AAC cases then to evaluate differences in prognostic, pathological and molecular parameters including mutational status of three oncogenes between these subtypes.
methodsAACs from 21 Tunisian patients were used in this study. Reclassification was made based on histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) using CK7, CK20, MUC1 and MUC2. Mutational analysis included the pyrosequencing of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF.
resultsFifteen cases were PB subtype, 2 cases were IT subtype and 4 cases were mixed subtype. CK20 and MUC2 were associated with N stage, MUC1 and histomolecular subtype with T stage. Nine cases were mutated and 12 were wild-type. Eight cases were KRAS mutated (5 G12D and 3 G12V). Only 1 case was NRAS mutated (G12D). No BRAF mutation was found. Genetic alterations didn't influence prognostic factors.
conclusionsWe validate the prognostic utility of AAC histomolecular classification.
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.