-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparison of Native Aspirates and Cytological Smears Obtained by EUS-Guided Biopsies for Effective DNA/RNA Marker Testing in Pancreatic Cancer
L. Benesova, T. Halkova, B. Bunganic, B. Belsanova, M. Zavoral, E. Traboulsi, M. Minarik
Language English Country Switzerland
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
Grant support
16-31028A
Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
MO1012
Ministerstvo Obrany (CZ)
NV16-31028A
MZ0
CEP Register
Digital library NLK
Full text - Article
NLK
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2014-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 1995
- MeSH
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration MeSH
- Cytodiagnosis methods MeSH
- DNA analysis MeSH
- Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal diagnosis MeSH
- Tissue Fixation methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- MicroRNAs analysis MeSH
- Mutation MeSH
- Biomarkers, Tumor analysis MeSH
- Pancreatic Neoplasms diagnosis MeSH
- Specimen Handling methods MeSH
- Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) genetics MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
We compare two types of pancreatic carcinoma samples obtained by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in terms of the success rates and clinical validity of analysis of two most commonly investigated DNA/RNA pancreatic cancer markers, KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. 118 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent EUS-FNB. The collected sample was divided, one part was stored in a stabilizing solution as native aspirate (EUS-FNA) and second part was processed into the cytological smear (EUS-FNC). DNA/RNA extraction was followed by analysis of KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. For both sample types, the yields of DNA/RNA extraction and success rates of KRAS mutation and miRNA expression were evaluated. Finally, the resulting KRAS mutation frequency and miR-21 prognostic role were compared to literature data from tissue resections. The overall amount of isolated DNA/RNA from EUS-FNC was lower compared to the EUS-FNA, average yield 10 ng vs 147 ng for DNA and average yield 164 vs. 642 ng for RNA, but the success rates for KRAS and miR-21 analysis was 100% for both sample types. The KRAS-mutant detection frequency in EUS-FNC was 12% higher than in EUS-FNA (90 vs 78%). The prognostic role of miR-21 was confirmed in EUS-FNC (p = 0.02), but did not reach statistical significance in EUS-FNA (p = 0.06). Although both types of EUS-FNB samples are suitable for DNA/RNA extraction and subsequent DNA mutation and miRNA expression analysis, reliable results with clinical validity were only obtained for EUS-FNC.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21013001
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210716110712.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s12253-018-0490-9 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)30361898
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Benesova, Lucie $u Centre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of Native Aspirates and Cytological Smears Obtained by EUS-Guided Biopsies for Effective DNA/RNA Marker Testing in Pancreatic Cancer / $c L. Benesova, T. Halkova, B. Bunganic, B. Belsanova, M. Zavoral, E. Traboulsi, M. Minarik
- 520 9_
- $a We compare two types of pancreatic carcinoma samples obtained by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in terms of the success rates and clinical validity of analysis of two most commonly investigated DNA/RNA pancreatic cancer markers, KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. 118 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent EUS-FNB. The collected sample was divided, one part was stored in a stabilizing solution as native aspirate (EUS-FNA) and second part was processed into the cytological smear (EUS-FNC). DNA/RNA extraction was followed by analysis of KRAS mutations and miR-21 expression. For both sample types, the yields of DNA/RNA extraction and success rates of KRAS mutation and miRNA expression were evaluated. Finally, the resulting KRAS mutation frequency and miR-21 prognostic role were compared to literature data from tissue resections. The overall amount of isolated DNA/RNA from EUS-FNC was lower compared to the EUS-FNA, average yield 10 ng vs 147 ng for DNA and average yield 164 vs. 642 ng for RNA, but the success rates for KRAS and miR-21 analysis was 100% for both sample types. The KRAS-mutant detection frequency in EUS-FNC was 12% higher than in EUS-FNA (90 vs 78%). The prognostic role of miR-21 was confirmed in EUS-FNC (p = 0.02), but did not reach statistical significance in EUS-FNA (p = 0.06). Although both types of EUS-FNB samples are suitable for DNA/RNA extraction and subsequent DNA mutation and miRNA expression analysis, reliable results with clinical validity were only obtained for EUS-FNC.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a nádorové biomarkery $x analýza $7 D014408
- 650 _2
- $a duktální karcinom slinivky břišní $x diagnóza $7 D021441
- 650 _2
- $a cytodiagnostika $x metody $7 D003581
- 650 _2
- $a DNA $x analýza $7 D004247
- 650 _2
- $a biopsie tenkou jehlou pod endosonografickou kontrolou $7 D061765
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a mikro RNA $x analýza $7 D035683
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a mutace $7 D009154
- 650 _2
- $a nádory slinivky břišní $x diagnóza $7 D010190
- 650 _2
- $a protoonkogenní proteiny p21(ras) $x genetika $7 D016283
- 650 _2
- $a odběr biologického vzorku $x metody $7 D013048
- 650 _2
- $a fixace tkání $x metody $7 D016707
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Halkova, Tereza $u Centre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Bunganic, Bohus $u Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Belsanova, Barbora $u Centre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Zavoral, Miroslav $u Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Traboulsi, Eva $u Pathology department, Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Minarik, Marek $u Centre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors (CEGES), Genomac Research Institute, 161 00, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic. mminarik@email.com ; Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Military University Hospital, 169 02, Prague, CZ, Czech Republic. mminarik@email.com
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180530 $t Pathology oncology research : POR $x 1532-2807 $g Roč. 26, č. 1 (2020), s. 379-385
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30361898 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210716110712 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1651230 $s 1133380
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 26 $c 1 $d 379-385 $e 20181025 $i 1532-2807 $m Pathology oncology research $n Pathol Oncol Res $x MED00180530
- GRA __
- $a 16-31028A $p Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
- GRA __
- $a MO1012 $p Ministerstvo Obrany (CZ)
- GRA __
- $a NV16-31028A $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420