Literature DB >> 17659731

Evaluation of clinical relevance of examining K-ras, p16 and p53 mutations along with allelic losses at 9p and 18q in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration samples of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

C Salek1, L Benesova, M Zavoral, V Nosek, L Kasperova, M Ryska, R Strnad, E Traboulsi, M Minarik.   

Abstract

AIM: To establish an optimum combination of molecular markers resulting in best overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for evaluation of suspicious pancreatic mass.
METHODS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA) was performed on 101 consecutive patients (63 males, 38 females, 60 +/- 12 years; 81 with subsequently diagnosed pancreatic cancer, 20 with chronic pancreatitis) with focal pancreatic mass. Samples were evaluated on-site by an experienced cytopathologist. DNA was extracted from Giemsa stained cells selected by laser microdissection and the presence of K-ras, p53 and p16 somatic mutations was tested by cycling-gradient capillary electrophoresis (CGCE) and single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) techniques. In addition, allelic losses of tumor suppressor genes p16 (INK4, CDKN2A) and DPC4 (MADH4, SMAD4) were detected by monitoring the loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at 9p and 18q, respectively.
RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided FNA were 75% and 85%, positive and negative predictive value reached 100%. The remaining 26% samples were assigned as inconclusive. Testing of molecular markers revealed sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 100% for K-ras mutations (P < 0.001), 24% and 90% for p53 mutations (NS), 13% and 100% for p16 mutations (NS), 85% and 64% for allelic losses at 9p (P < 0.001) and 78% and 57% for allelic losses at 18q (P < 0.05). When tests for different molecular markers were combined, the best results were obtained with K-ras + LOH at 9p (92% and 64%, P < 0.001), K-ras + LOH at 18q (92% and 57%, P < 0.001), and K-ras + LOH 9q + LOH 18q (96% and 43%, P < 0.001). When the molecular markers were used as complements to FNA cytology to evaluate inconclusive samples only, the overall sensitivity of cancer detection was 100% in all patients enrolled in the study.
CONCLUSION: EUS-guided FNA cytology combined with screening of K-ras mutations and allelic losses of tumor suppressors p16 and DPC4 represents a very sensitive approach in screening for pancreatic malignancy. Molecular markers may find its use particularly in cases where FNA cytology has been inconclusive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17659731      PMCID: PMC4250643          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i27.3714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  40 in total

Review 1.  Survival statistics gone awry: pancreatic cancer, a case in point.

Authors:  Birgir Gudjonsson
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.062

2.  Analysis of genetic events in 17p13 and 9p21 regions supports predominant monoclonal origin of multifocal and recurrent bladder cancer.

Authors:  Marie Trkova; Marko Babjuk; Jaroslava Duskova; Lucie Benesova-Minarikova; Viktor Soukup; Jaroslav Mares; Marek Minarik; Zdenek Sedlacek
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 8.679

3.  Diagnosing pancreatic cancer using methylation specific PCR analysis of pancreatic juice.

Authors:  Noriyoshi Fukushima; Kimberly M Walter; Takashi Uek; Norihiro Sato; Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; John L Cameron; Ralph H Hruban; Marcia Canto; Charles J Yeo; Michael Goggins
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.742

4.  Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities.

Authors:  Keith E Volmar; Robin T Vollmer; Paul S Jowell; Rendon C Nelson; H Bill Xie
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 5.  Genetics of pancreatic cancer. From genes to families.

Authors:  R H Hruban; G M Petersen; P K Ha; S E Kern
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.495

6.  Abrogation of the Rb/p16 tumor-suppressive pathway in virtually all pancreatic carcinomas.

Authors:  M Schutte; R H Hruban; J Geradts; R Maynard; W Hilgers; S K Rabindran; C A Moskaluk; S A Hahn; I Schwarte-Waldhoff; W Schmiegel; S B Baylin; S E Kern; J G Herman
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 7.  Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  John Dewitt; Benedict M Devereaux; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2006-05-03       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Frequent deletions of tumor suppressor genes in pure pancreatic juice from patients with tumoral or nontumoral pancreatic diseases.

Authors:  Lydie Costentin; Philippe Pagès; Michèle Bouisson; Philippe Berthelémy; Louis Buscail; Jean Escourrou; Lucien Pradayrol; Nicole Vaysse
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.996

9.  Loss of chromosome 18q is an early event in pancreatic ductal tumorigenesis.

Authors:  S Fukushige; T Furukawa; K Satoh; M Sunamura; M Kobari; M Koizumi; A Horii
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Detection of c-Ki-ras gene codon 12 mutations from pancreatic duct brushings in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours.

Authors:  J L Van Laethem; P Vertongen; J Deviere; J Van Rampelbergh; F Rickaert; M Cremer; P Robberecht
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the molecular diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Barbara Bournet; Marion Gayral; Jérôme Torrisani; Janick Selves; Pierre Cordelier; Louis Buscail
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Head mass in chronic pancreatitis: Inflammatory or malignant.

Authors:  Amit K Dutta; Ashok Chacko
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-03-16

Review 3.  Molecular biology of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Miroslav Zavoral; Petra Minarikova; Filip Zavada; Cyril Salek; Marek Minarik
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Advances in biomarker research for pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Kruttika Bhat; Fengfei Wang; Qingyong Ma; Qinyu Li; Sanku Mallik; Tze-Chen Hsieh; Erxi Wu
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.116

Review 5.  Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Leticia Perondi Luz; Mohammad Ali Al-Haddad; Michael Sai Lai Sey; John M DeWitt
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition: where we stand in 2013?

Authors:  Zeid Karadsheh; Mohammad Al-Haddad
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Pancreatic cancer early detection: expanding higher-risk group with clinical and metabolomics parameters.

Authors:  Shiro Urayama
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Endoscopic ultrasound in chronic pancreatitis: where are we now?

Authors:  Andrada Seicean
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis and FISH for detecting pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology specimens collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Benjamin R Kipp; Emily G Barr Fritcher; Amy C Clayton; Gregory J Gores; Lewis R Roberts; Jun Zhang; Michael J Levy; Kevin C Halling
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 5.568

10.  Loss of heterozygosity predicts poor survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Jan Franko; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Marina N Nikiforova; Narcis O Zarnescu; Kenneth K W Lee; Steven J Hughes; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; A James Moser
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-08-02       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.