ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2020
Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Using Digital Next-Generation Sequencing.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular vesicle biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: from bulk detection to single-extracellular vesicle profiling and endoscopic liquid biopsy.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- KRAS and TP53 Circulating Tumor DNA are Prognostic in Localized Pancreatic Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Evidence Mapping of ctDNA Reporting in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Toward a Shared Quantitative Language for ctDNA.Cancers · 2026Review
- Early detection of pancreatic cancer on computed tomography: advancements with deep learning.Radiology advances · 2025Review
- Cell free RNA detection of pancreatic cancer in pre diagnostic high risk and symptomatic patients.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy in gastrointestinal oncology: clinical applications and translational integration of ctDNA, CTCs, and sEVs.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Early detection of pancreatic cancer in the era of precision medicine.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Review
- Progresses in biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy.MedComm · 2023Review
- Review
- Pancreatic Cancer: Changing Epidemiology and New Approaches to Risk Assessment, Early Detection, and Prevention.Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer Aiming for a Comprehensive Genome Profile.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluating Pancreatic and Biliary Neoplasms with Small Biopsy-Based Next Generation Sequencing (NGS): Doing More with Less.Cancers · 2022Review
- Leveraging the Fragment Length of Circulating Tumour DNA to Improve Molecular Profiling of Solid Tumour Malignancies with Next-Generation Sequencing: A Pathway to Advanced Non-invasive Diagnostics in Precision Oncology?Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2021Review
- Molecular Approaches Using Body Fluid for the Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The genetics of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in the year 2020: dramatic progress, but far to go.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020Review
- Screening for pancreatic cancer has the potential to save lives, but is it practical?Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) measurements can be used to estimate tumor burden, but avoiding false-positive results is challenging. Herein, digital next-generation sequencing (NGS) is evaluated as a ctDNA detection method. Plasma KRAS and GNAS hotspot mutation levels were measured in 140 subjects, including 67 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and 73 healthy and disease controls. To limit chemical modifications of DNA that yield false-positive mutation calls, plasma DNA was enzymatically pretreated, after which DNA was aliquoted for digital detection of mutations (up to 384 aliquots/sample) by PCR and NGS. A digital NGS score of two SDs above the mean in controls was considered positive. Thirty-seven percent of patients with pancreatic cancer, including 31% of patients with stages I/II disease, had positive KRAS codon 12 ctDNA scores; only one patient had a positive GNAS mutation score. Two disease control patients had positive ctDNA scores. Low-normal-range digital NGS scores at mutation hotspots were found at similar levels in healthy and disease controls, usually at sites of cytosine deamination, and were likely the result of chemical modification of plasma DNA and NGS error rather than true mutations. Digital NGS detects mutated ctDNA in patients with pancreatic cancer with similar yield to other methods. Detection of low-level, true-positive ctDNA is limited by frequent low-level detection of false-positive mutation calls in plasma DNA from controls.
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.