ArticleeGastroenterology2026
Ultra-low-pass whole-genome sequencing of bile cfDNA in patients with biliary strictures.
Article in eGastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate discrimination of malignant versus benign biliary strictures remains clinically challenging. We previously showed that targeted bile cell-free DNA (cfDNA) mutation analysis (Bilemut assay) enables sensitive detection of malignancy, but it does not distinguish cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and its prognostic value remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated ultra-low-pass whole-genome sequencing (ULP-WGS) of bile cfDNA as a potentially cost-effective, technically simple and low-DNA input demanding genomic approach for early tumour detection, tumour-origin discrimination and prognostic stratification. Methods: Bile samples from 95 patients with biliary strictures under radiological suspicion of malignancy, classified as malignant (n=26) or indeterminate (n=69) based on the result of cytology or biopsy at the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), were analysed by ULP-WGS. Tumour fraction (TF) and copy-number alterations (CNAs) were inferred using ichorCNA. Tumour mutational burden (TMB) was assessed with the Bilemut panel. Overall survival was analysed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. A supervised classifier based on discriminant analysis of principal components was used to distinguish CCA from PDAC. Results: In matched samples, bile LP-WGS showed higher sensitivity than plasma for tumour detection. Among patients with an initial malignant diagnosis, bile ULP-WGS detected circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in 73% of cases. In patients initially classified as indeterminate but later confirmed as malignant, tumour DNA was detected in 51%, anticipating final diagnosis by a median of 38 days; notably, in seven patients, ctDNA was detectable more than 100 days before routine diagnosis, highlighting its potential for very early tumour detection. Specificity in strictures with a final benign outcome was 96%. CNA profiling revealed recurrent chromosomal alterations consistent with tissue-based data, and a 50-region CNA classifier discriminated CCA from PDAC with an accuracy of 0.864. Although neither TF nor TMB alone was associated with overall survival, their combination identified a subgroup with poorer prognosis. Conclusions: Our exploratory study shows that bile ULP-WGS performed at the first ERCP could represent a complementary, scalable and potentially cost-effective genomic strategy for early malignancy detection in biliary strictures, with additional value for tumour-origin classification and, combined with TMB analysis, for identifying patients with poorer prognosis.
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.