ArticleCytoJournal2023
Molecular analysis with pancreaseq® in evaluation and management of pancreatic cysts: A cohort of 28 patients.
Article in CytoJournal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges of early detection of pancreatic cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Herein, we present the PancreaSeq® results of 28 patients and emphasize the usefulness of molecular testing in evaluation of pancreatic cysts. Material and Methods: A total of 10 (35.7%) non-diagnostic, 6 (21.4%) negative, 5 (17.8%) atypical, and 7 (25%) were positive for mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) pancreatic cyst aspirates were analyzed with PancreaSeq® at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville between September 2021 and February 2023. Results: Three non-diagnostic, two negative, three atypical, and two positive for MCN cysts were positive for KRAS and GNAS mutations. They were interpreted as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with low risk for progression to high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma. One negative case was positive for KRAS and GNAS mutation and RNF43 copy number alteration. It was interpreted as IPMN with a low risk of progression. Two non-diagnostic, one negative, and two positive for MCN cysts were positive for KRAS mutation. All were interpreted as IPMN/MCNs with low risk of progression. One positive for MCN case was positive for GNAS mutation and ALK fusion and one positive for MCN case was positive for GNAS mutation, ALK fusion, and RNF43 copy number alteration. Both were interpreted as IPMN and their risk of progression was interpreted as not well understood. One atypical case was positive for KRAS and TP53 mutation and was interpreted as IPMN/ MCNs with a high risk of progression. VHL mutation was present in one non-diagnostic case. It was interpreted as serous cystadenoma and the risk for progression was low. Conclusion: Molecular analysis of pancreatic cysts with PancreaSeq® is useful in accurate diagnosis, especially when cytologic material is non-diagnostic and helps improve patient management.
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.