Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Mutation of the KRAS oncogene is present in 75% to 95% of pancreatic cancer tissues. This study aimed to evaluate whether endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), combined with analysis of the KRAS mutation, improves the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in cases of inconclusive or doubtful cytopathologic analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively included 186 patients with a pancreatic mass (103 men; mean age: 62 y). Cytopathology and KRAS mutations, using TaqMan MGB allelic discrimination, were performed on EUS-FNA material. A final diagnosis was obtained from EUS-FNA analysis and/or a subsequent biopsy if necessary, and/or surgery, and follow-up: these were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=104), other malignant pancreatic tumors (n=22), and benign lesions (n=60, including 35 cases of chronic pancreatitis). RESULTS: Inconclusive or doubtful (low-grade dysplasia or atypia) cytopathology was found in 68 cases. Of these, 29 patients who had adenocarcinoma were subsequently diagnosed, including 19 cases with a former KRAS mutation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy of cytopathology alone to diagnose adenocarcinoma were 73%, 100%, 100%, 75%, and 85%, respectively. When KRAS mutation analysis was combined with pathology, these values reached 88%, 99%, 99%, 89%, and 93%, respectively. The performance of EUS-FNA to diagnose malignancy was similarly improved after the KRAS-mutation assay (negative predictive value increased from 67% to 88%; accuracy increased from 85% to 94%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA plus KRAS-mutation analysis, using allelic discrimination, is accurate and improves the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma when pathology is inconclusive or doubtful.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bournet et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: