ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020
Evaluation of Local Recurrence of Pancreatic Cancer by KRAS Mutation Analysis Using Washes from Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Local Recurrence After Pancreatic Cancer Resection: A Multidisciplinary Review of Risk Factors and Potential Causes, Diagnostic Innovations, Emerging Therapeutic Frontiers, and Prevention Strategies.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers.Journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Article
- Establishment of organoids using residual samples from saline flushes during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with pancreatic cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Current and Emerging Applications of Droplet Digital PCR in Oncology: An Updated Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosing the recurrence of pancreatic cancer is usually low because of difficulties in obtaining adequate samples for pathological examinations. We evaluated the efficacy of highly sensitive KRAS mutation analysis using EUS-FNA washes to detect cancer recurrence.
methodsNineteen consecutive patients with suspected pancreatic cancer recurrence after surgical resection were enrolled. All underwent EUS-FNA, and samples were obtained for pathological examination. After the first session, the inside of the FNA needle was washed with saline for DNA extraction. KRAS mutations were examined using digital droplet PCR (dPCR).
resultsThe median needle puncture number used to obtain adequate pathological samples was two (range 1-6). In ten patients pathologically diagnosed with malignant pancreatic cancer, nine patients tested positive for a KRAS mutation. All patients who were not diagnosed with a malignant pancreatic cancer tested negative for a KRAS mutation. About half of surgically resected primary cancers (9/19) showed double KRAS mutations (G12V and G12D); however, all but one wash sample showed a single KRAS mutation, G12D. After including one patient who showed a malignant recurrence during follow-up, the sensitivities of a pathological diagnosis and KRAS analysis to detect recurrence were 90.9% and 81.8%, respectively.
conclusionsKRAS mutation analysis of needle wash samples using dPCR is a new methodology for the diagnosis of the local recurrence of pancreatic cancer. The diagnostic ability of dPCR with a one-time needle wash sample was comparable to a pathological diagnosis with multiple samplings.
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.