Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34260388›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Rapid diagnosis and tumor margin assessment during pancreatic cancer surgery with the MasSpec Pen technology.

Mary E King, Jialing Zhang, John Q Lin, Kyana Y Garza, Rachel J DeHoog, Clara L Feider, Alena Bensussan, Marta Sans, Anna Krieger, Sunil Badal and 10 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Metabolite ratiomics: Rapid diagnosis and classification of gliomas for intraoperative application during brain surgery.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Ambient ionization mass spectrometry in brain cancer diagnosis.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2025
    Review
  11. Applications of DESI and DART Mass Spectrometry in Forensic Science.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Rapid detection of IDH mutations in gliomas by intraoperative mass spectrometry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary E KingDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Jialing ZhangDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.ORCID 0000-0001-9146-668X
John Q LinDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.ORCID 0000-0001-5888-3107
Kyana Y GarzaDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Rachel J DeHoogDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Clara L FeiderDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Alena BensussanDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Marta SansDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Anna KriegerDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Sunil BadalDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Michael F KeatingDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Spencer WoodyDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.ORCID 0000-0002-2882-3450
Sadhna DhingraDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
Wendong YuDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
Christopher PirkoDepartment of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
Kirtan A BrahmbhattDepartment of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
George Van BurenDepartment of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
William E FisherDepartment of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
James SuliburkDepartment of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030 liviase@utexas.edu suliburk@bcm.edu.
Livia S EberlinDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; liviase@utexas.edu suliburk@bcm.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3885-3215
The University of Texas at Austin · USBaylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

Advanced Development of the MasSpec Pen for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Margin EvaluationR33CA229068 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI SCHIAVINATO EBERLIN, LIVIA · 2019 to 2021
$1.3M
Mass Spectrometry Imaging for Clinical Diagnosis and Prognosis of Human CancersR00CA190783 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI SCHIAVINATO EBERLIN, LIVIA · 2016 to 2018
$677k
NCI NIH HHS R00 CA190783NCI NIH HHS R33 CA229068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intraoperative delineation of tumor margins is critical for effective pancreatic cancer surgery. Yet, intraoperative frozen section analysis of tumor margins is a time-consuming and often challenging procedure that can yield confounding results due to histologic heterogeneity and tissue-processing artifacts. We have previously described the development of the MasSpec Pen technology as a handheld mass spectrometry-based device for nondestructive tissue analysis. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of the MasSpec Pen for intraoperative diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on alterations in the metabolite and lipid profiles in in vivo and ex vivo tissues. We used the MasSpec Pen to analyze 157 banked human tissues, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic, and bile duct tissues. Classification models generated from the molecular data yielded an overall agreement with pathology of 91.5%, sensitivity of 95.5%, and specificity of 89.7% for discriminating normal pancreas from cancer. We built a second classifier to distinguish bile duct from pancreatic cancer, achieving an overall accuracy of 95%, sensitivity of 92%, and specificity of 100%. We then translated the MasSpec Pen to the operative room and predicted on in vivo and ex vivo data acquired during 18 pancreatic surgeries, achieving 93.8% overall agreement with final postoperative pathology reports. Notably, when integrating banked tissue data with intraoperative data, an improved agreement of 100% was achieved. The result obtained demonstrate that the MasSpec Pen provides high predictive performance for tissue diagnosis and compatibility for intraoperative use, suggesting that the technology may be useful to guide surgical decision-making during pancreatic cancer surgeries.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyMargins of ExcisionMass SpectrometryAgedCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCommon Bile DuctFemaleHumansIntraoperative CareMaleMiddle AgedPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsStatistics as TopicMasSpec Penmass spectrometrypancreatic cancersurgical margin evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34260388
PMCPMC8285949
OpenAlexW3181505139

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.