Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation for pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Beijing, China

Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation for pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Shang-Long Liu, Ge Chen, Yu-Pei Zhao, Wen-Ming Wu and Tai-Ping Zhang

Beijing, China

BACKGROUND:The conventional tests for the diagnosis of early stage pancreatic carcinoma are not acceptable. This metaanalysis is to evaluate the accuracy of K-ras mutation for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

DATA SOURCES:A systemic search of all relevant literature was performed in Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and MEDLINE (PubMed as the search engine) prior to June 1, 2011. Thirty-four studies fulf i lled the inclusion criteria and data were pooled for analysis.

RESULTS:The pooled estimates for K-ras mutation in diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma were as follows: sensitivity 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71), specif i city 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.88), positive likelihood ratio 4.54 (95% CI: 3.47-5.94), negative likelihood ratio 0.37 (95% CI: 0.30-0.44) and diagnostic odds ratio 14.90 (95% CI: 10.02-22.15). Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the maximum joint sensitivity and specif i city was 0.79, and the overall area under the curve was 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS:Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation was not superior to that of conventional tests. Therefore, K-ras mutation analysis alone is not recommended for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

(Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2013;12:458-464)

cancer diagnosis;K-ras; pancreatic carcinoma; meta-analysis

Introduction

Pancreatic carcinoma, so called "silent killer", is the sixth leading cause of cancer death in China.[1]Surgical resection and adjuvant treatment may improve survival; however, the outcome is far from satisfactory.[2]Its poor prognosis is mainly due to the failure of diagnosis at the early stage. Although radiological imaging techniques have been greatly advanced, early diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma remains a challenge, especially in the setting of chronic pancreatitis. Due to its insidious onset, pancreatic carcinomas are almost always in advanced stage when diagnosed. Some serum tumor markers, such as carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), are elevated in pancreatic carcinoma; however, their sensitivity and specif i city are very low. Using primer-mediated, mutant-enriched, polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, Hruban and colleagues found that the K-ras gene mutation occurs frequently in adenocarcinomas of the pancreas.[3]

K-ras is a member of the Ras gene family and plays a key role in Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling. Somatic mutation in K-ras can be found frequently in many cancers, pancreatic cancer is one of them. K-ras codon 12 mutation is one of the earliest genetic changes in the process of pancreatic carcinoma development and accurate detection of K-ras mutations is pivotal to molecular diagnosis.[4,5]However, the role of K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma remains controversial. Therefore, a large and multicenter study or a meta-analysis may help to validate the true value of K-ras mutation on the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The present meta-analysis was to probe the diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation in pancreatic carcinoma.

Methods

Search strategy and study selection

A systemic search of relevant literature including Web ofScience, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and MEDLINE (PubMed as the search engine) was performed to identify eligible studies prior to June 1, 2011. The related articles in PubMed and the references of identif i ed articles were also included. Titles and abstracts were initially screened, and then the potentially included articles were evaluated by three reviewers (Liu SL, Chen G and Zhao YP). Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. The search strategy was based on the combination of "ras", "pancreatic tumor/cancer/ adenocarcinoma/neoplasm" and "sensitivity/specif i city". Studies were considered eligible if they: (1) provided both the sensitivity and specif i city of K-ras mutation for diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma; (2) contained suff i cient data to calculate the diagnostic test results; (3) included more than 10 cases because small sample size may be vulnerable to selection bias; and (4) were published in English. The publications with possible overlap were discussed by the above three reviewers and only the most scientif i cally designed study was included. Conference abstracts were excluded because of the limited information. We also excluded basic research studies and review articles.

Quality assessment and data extraction

Studies fulf i lling the inclusion criteria were used for data extraction. Two reviewers (Liu SL and Chen G) independently extracted the data which included authors, year of publication, test method, sample, sensitivity and specif i city, as well as quality score. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed based on the guidelines published by Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD, maximum score 25) and Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS, maximum score 14).

Statistical analysis

Guidelines for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies have been used in previous publications.[6,7]STATA version 10 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, USA), Meta-Disc (Zamoral J, Muriel A, Abraira V. Meta-Disc for Windows, XI Cochrane Colloquium. Barcelona, 2003) and SPSS version 16.0 were used for statistical analysis. Sensitivity, specif i city, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) in each study were calculated. A meta-analysis of sensitivity, specif i city, PLR and NLR was performed by pooling data from all data series. A random-effects model was used to calculate the above measures of test accuracy.

The meta-analysis was based on a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve described by Littenberg and Moses.[8]The Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to detect heterogeneity among studies and to evaluate the degree of variability. Univariate meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the effects of STARD and QUADAS scores on the diagnostic ability of K-ras mutation. The relative DOR (RDOR) was calculated to analyze the change in diagnostic precision in the study per unit increase in the covariate. The potential presence of publication bias was measured by funnel plots and Egger test.[9]Statistical hypotheses (two-tailed) were tested at the level of 5% signif i cance.

Results

Study characteristics and quality scores

In 263 publications, 221 studies were excluded because they were irrelevant to the present analysis. The number of 4 of the remaining 42 articles were excluded because they analyzed the role of K-ras mutation in non-pancreatic carcinoma,[10-13]and another four were excluded because there were insuff i cient information to calculate the sensitivity and specif i city.[14-17]Thirty-four studies were fi nally identif i ed for the meta-analysis.[18-51]The characteristics of these studies, along with STARD and QUADAS scores, are outlined in Table 1.

The total number of patients enrolled in the studies was 2687, ranging from 19 to 358 per study, only eight studies had more than 100 cases, and six studies less than 30 cases. Of the 34 studies, 13 had STARD scores≥13 and 26 had QUADAS scores ≥10.

Diagnostic accuracy

Fig. 1 shows the forest plot of the sensitivity and specif i city of the included studies. The range for sensitivity was 0.20-0.94 (mean 0.68, 95% CI: 0.66-0.71), and for specif i city, 0.64-1.00 (mean 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.88). The PLR was 4.54 (95% CI: 3.47-5.94) and the NLR, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.30-0.44). The DOR is a number that combines the information from sensitivity and specif i city into a single indicator, with higher values indicating higher diagnostic accuracy. In the present meta-analysis, DOR for K-ras mutation was 14.90 (95% CI: 10.02-22.15). Q values of sensitivity, specif i city, DOR, PLR and NLR were 169.17, 112.97, 69.94, 71.80 and 185.82, respectively, with the values of the Chi-square test <0.001, indicating a signif i cant heterogeneity among the included studies.

We stratif i ed the analysis by specimen types. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity for blood analysis was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.27-0.48) and specif i city was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-0.97); PLR was 4.02 (95% CI: 1.81-8.95), NLR was0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.88) and DOR was 6.16 (2.38-15.96). The sensitivity for pancreatic cyst fl uid analysis was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.44-0.81) and the specif i city was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83-0.98); PLR was 6.28 (95% CI: 2.40-16.40), NLR was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.17-1.18) and DOR was 18.34 (95% CI: 3.71-90.70). For pancreatic juice, the sensitivity was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.50-0.64) and the specif i city was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87); PLR was 2.87 (95% CI: 1.98-4.17), NLR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.41-0.74) and DOR was 6.05 (95% CI: 3.21-11.42). For pancreatic tissue, the sensitivity was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.71-0.77) and the specif i city was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90); PLR was 6.21 (95% CI: 4.17-9.26), NLR was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24-0.35) and DOR was 21.97 (95% CI: 14.66-32.92) (Table 2).

Table 1.Characteristics of studies included in the current meta-analysis

SROC analysis

The SROC curve was constructed from original values of sensitivity and specif i city. The true positive against false positive rates are shown in Fig. 2. The sensitivity in 10 (29.4%) of the 34 studies was >0.80 and in 8 studies (23.5%), the sensitivity was <0.50. In contrast, the specif i city in 27 studies (79.4%) was >0.80.Our data showed that the maximum joint sensitivity and specif i city was 0.79, and the overall area under the curve (AUC) for K-ras mutation was 0.86.

Multiple regression analysis

Fig. 1.Forest plot of sensitivity and specif i city for K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. The point estimates of sensitivity from available studies are illustrated as solid circles. Error bars are 95% CIs.

Of the available studies, RDOR, which was produced by higher quality studies and the lower ones (cut-off of STARD scores: 13), was not signif i cantly different (P=0.890). The coeff i cient and RDOR were 0.065 and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.41-2.76) respectively. QUADAS, either≥10 or <10 had no impact on diagnostic accuracy. The coeff i cient and RDOR were -0.391 and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.21-2.18), respectively (P=0.500). These results indicated that the study quality did not inf l uence the accuracy of K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

Publication bias

The funnel plot for publication bias was asymmetric (Fig. 3). The evaluation showed that the Egger test was signif i cant (P=0.006), indicating a potential publication bias.

Fig. 2.SROC curves for K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. The solid circles represent studies included in the meta-analysis, and the size of each study is paralleled with the size of the solid circle. SROC curve summarizes the overall diagnostic accuracy.

Table 2.Pooled results of diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation in different samples in pancreatic carcinoma

Fig. 3.Funnel graph for evaluation of potential publication bias for K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. The funnel graphs plot the log of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) against the SEM of the log of the DOR. The available studies in the metaanalysis are shown as the solid circles.

Discussion

Even though pancreatic carcinoma is virtually fatal, some of the patients might be cured if they were diagnosed early enough. K-ras mutation is an early and essential molecular event in the pathogenesis of pancreatic carcinoma. However, the accuracy of K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma is controversial. The present meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic value of K-ras mutation in pancreatic carcinoma. The results indicated that the K-ras mutation had a low sensitivity and NLR, suggesting that patients with negative K-ras mutation cannot role out pancreatic carcinoma. A PLR of 4.54 indicates that patients with pancreatic carcinoma have a nearly fi ve fold chance of K-ras mutation compared with those without pancreatic carcinoma. The DOR value for K-ras mutation was 14.90 (95% CI: 10.02-22.15), suggesting that K-ras mutation could be useful in diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. The diagnostic precision of K-ras mutation in pancreatic carcinoma is similar to that of conventional methods, such as CA19-9 and CEA, with a low sensitivity and a high specif i city. K-ras mutation can be found in pancreatic juice, bile, blood and stool. The collection and storage of specimens, the assay techniques, and the included population can contribute to the variety of K-ras mutation. It has been reported that K-ras mutation even occurs in premalignant or normal cells.[52]Unlike the conventional tests (CA19-9 and CEA), which are usually used as tumor markers for the general population, the assay for K-ras mutation is specif i cally for the patients with pancreatic diseases, including those with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cystic diseases. Thus, there is a huge difference between K-ras mutation and conventional assays in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras analysis for pancreatic cancer is diverse in different samples. The overall specif i cities in blood, cyst fl uid, pancreatic juice and pancreatic tissue for diagnosing pancreatic cancer were more than 0.80, suggesting a potential role of these samples for K-ras analysis in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. The sensitivities in the four samples are, however, quite low and are more variable than specif i cities (from 0.37 to 0.74). The diagnostic role of K-ras analysis seems to be better in pancreatic tissue and cyst fl uid than that in blood and pancreatic juice. SROC analysis also demonstrates that K-ras analyses in pancreatic tissue and cyst fl uid are more sensitive and specif i c than that in blood and pancreatic juice.

In the present meta-analysis, STARD and QUADAS scores were used to evaluate the effect of study quality on diagnostic performance. The results indicated that study quality was not associated with K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

The present study may provide some information about the role of K-ras mutation in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. However, some limitations of this study should not be ignored. First, the excluded conference abstracts and non-English language studies may have contributed to publication bias. Moreover, some studies might have been missed, even though we attempted to include all related studies. Second, different K-ras analysis systems also affect the diagnostic accuracy. Even in the same population, the diagnostic results may be different if the K-ras analysis systems are different. In the present meta-analysis, the effect of factors such as laboratory infrastructure and the technology of K-ras mutation detection on the accuracy of meta-analysis results were not evaluated because of lack of necessary data in the original studies.

In conclusion, based on our meta-analysis, we cannot recommend K-ras mutation alone for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. K-ras mutation might be useful as an additional (second) assay for some patients with pancreatic tumors (cystic and solid) to contribute to cancer diagnosis. Finally, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted in parallel with clinical fi ndings.

Contributors:All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. ZYP is the guarantor.

Funding:None.

Ethical approval:Not needed.

Competing interest:No benef i ts in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

1 Guo X, Cui Z. Current diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer in China. Pancreas 2005;31:13-22.

2 Wong T, Howes N, Threadgold J, Smart HL, Lombard MG, Gilmore I, et al. Molecular diagnosis of early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in high-risk patients. Pancreatology 2001;1:486-509.

3 Hruban RH, van Mansfeld AD, Offerhaus GJ, van Weering DH, Allison DC, Goodman SN, et al. K-ras oncogene activation in adenocarcinoma of the human pancreas. A study of 82 carcinomas using a combination of mutantenriched polymerase chain reaction analysis and allelespecif i c oligonucleotide hybridization. Am J Pathol 1993;143: 545-554.

4 van Eijk R, van Puijenbroek M, Chhatta AR, Gupta N, Vossen RH, Lips EH, et al. Sensitive and specif i c KRAS somatic mutation analysis on whole-genome amplif i ed DNA from archival tissues. J Mol Diagn 2010;12:27-34.

5 Almoguera C, Shibata D, Forrester K, Martin J, Arnheim N, Perucho M. Most human carcinomas of the exocrine pancreas contain mutant c-K-ras genes. Cell 1988;53:549-554.

6 Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9.

7 Shi HZ, Liang QL, Jiang J, Qin XJ, Yang HB. Diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis. Respirology 2008;13:518-527.

8 Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conf l icting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making 1993;13:313-321.

9 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315:629-634.

10 Maire F, Couvelard A, Hammel P, Ponsot P, Palazzo L, Aubert A, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas: the preoperative value of cytologic and histopathologic diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:701-706.

11 van Heek NT, Clayton SJ, Sturm PD, Walker J, Gouma DJ, Noorduyn LA, et al. Comparison of the novel quantitative ARMS assay and an enriched PCR-ASO assay for K-ras mutations with conventional cytology on endobiliary brush cytology from 312 consecutive extrahepatic biliary stenoses. J Clin Pathol 2005;58:1315-1320.

12 Shi C, Chandrasekaran A, Thuluvath PJ, Karikari C, Argani P, Goggins M, et al. Ultrasensitive detection of KRAS2 mutations in bile and serum from patients with biliary tract carcinoma using LigAmp technology. J Mol Diagn 2009;11: 583-589.

13 Lee JG, Leung JW, Cotton PB, Layf i eld LJ, Mannon PJ. Diagnostic utility of K-ras mutational analysis on bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:317-320.

14 Nonogaki K, Itoh A, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Ishikawa T, Matsubara H, et al. A preliminary result of three-dimensional microarray technology to gene analysis with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fi ne-needle aspiration specimens and pancreatic juices. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2010;29:36.

15 Zhang L, Farrell JJ, Zhou H, Elashoff D, Akin D, Park NH, et al. Salivary transcriptomic biomarkers for detection of resectable pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2010;138:949-957.

16 McCarthy DM, Maitra A, Argani P, Rader AE, Faigel DO, Van Heek NT, et al. Novel markers of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in fi ne-needle aspiration: mesothelin and prostate stem cell antigen labeling increases accuracy in cytologically borderline cases. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2003;11:238-243.

17 Marchese R, Muleti A, Pasqualetti P, Bucci B, Stigliano A, Brunetti E, et al. Low correspondence between K-ras mutations in pancreatic cancer tissue and detection of K-ras mutations in circulating DNA. Pancreas 2006;32:171-177.

18 Sreenarasimhaiah J, Lara LF, Jazrawi SF, Barnett CC, Tang SJ. A comparative analysis of pancreas cyst fl uid CEA and histology with DNA mutational analysis in the detection of mucin producing or malignant cysts. JOP 2009;10:163-168.

19 Uno K, Azuma T, Nakajima M, Yasuda K, Hayakumo T, Mukai H, et al. Clinical signif i cance of cathepsin E in pancreatic juice in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;15:1333-1338.

20 Pellisé M, Castells A, Ginès A, Solé M, Mora J, Castellví-Bel S, et al. Clinical usefulness of KRAS mutational analysis in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by means of endosonography-guided fi ne-needle aspiration biopsy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:1299-1307.

21 Parker LA, Porta M, Lumbreras B, López T, Guarner L, Hernández-Aguado I, et al. Clinical validity of detecting K-ras mutations for the diagnosis of exocrine pancreatic cancer: a prospective study in a clinically-relevant spectrum of patients. Eur J Epidemiol 2011;26:229-236.

22 Kipp BR, Fritcher EG, Clayton AC, Gores GJ, Roberts LR, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis and FISH for detecting pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology specimens collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Mol Diagn 2010;12:780-786.

23 Sawhney MS, Devarajan S, O'Farrel P, Cury MS, Kundu R, Vollmer CM, et al. Comparison of carcinoembryonic antigen and molecular analysis in pancreatic cyst fl uid. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1106-1110.

24 Lu X, Xu T, Qian J, Wen X, Wu D. Detecting K-ras and p53 gene mutation from stool and pancreatic juice for diagnosis of early pancreatic cancer. Chin Med J (Engl) 2002;115:1632-1636.

25 Van Laethem JL, Vertongen P, Deviere J, Van Rampelbergh J, Rickaert F, Cremer M, et al. Detection of c-Ki-ras gene codon 12 mutations from pancreatic duct brushings in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours. Gut 1995;36:781-787.

26 Liu F, Li ZS, Xu GM, Sun ZX, Zhou GX, Ren XX, et al. Detection of K-ras gene mutation at codon 12 by pancreatic duct brushing for pancreatic cancer. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2003;2:313-317.

27 Zhou GX, Huang JF, Li ZS, Xu GM, Liu F, Zhang H. Detection of K-ras point mutation and telomerase activity during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2004; 10:1337-1340.

28 Maire F, Micard S, Hammel P, Voitot H, Lévy P, Cugnenc PH, et al. Differential diagnosis between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: value of the detection of KRAS2 mutations in circulating DNA. Br J Cancer 2002;87:551-554.

29 Takahashi K, Yamao K, Okubo K, Sawaki A, Mizuno N, Ashida R, et al. Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and focal pancreatitis by using EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:76-79.

30 Fasanella KE, Krasinskas A, Schoedel KE, Sasatomi E, Slivka A, Whitcomb DC, et al. DNA mutational differences in cytological specimens from pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Pancreatology 2010;10:429-433.

31 Bournet B, Souque A, Senesse P, Assenat E, Barthet M, Lesavre N, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fi ne-needle aspiration biopsy coupled with KRAS mutation assay to distinguish pancreatic cancer from pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2009;41:552-557.

32 Okai T, Watanabe H, Yamaguchi Y, Mouri I, Motoo Y, Sawabu N. EUS and K-ras analysis of pure pancreatic juice collected via a duodenoscope after secretin stimulation for diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesion: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:797-803.

33 Salek C, Benesova L, Zavoral M, Nosek V, Kasperova L, Ryska M, et al. Evaluation of clinical relevance of examining K-ras, p16 and p53 mutations along with allelic losses at 9p and 18q in EUS-guided fi ne needle aspiration samples of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:3714-3720.

34 Wu X, Lu XH, Xu T, Qian JM, Zhao P, Guo XZ, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of serum tumor markers, and fecal k-ras and p53 gene mutations for pancreatic cancer. Chin J Dig Dis 2006;7:170-174.

35 Maluf-Filho F, Kumar A, Gerhardt R, Kubrusly M, Sakai P, Hondo F, et al. Kras mutation analysis of fi ne needle aspirate under EUS guidance facilitates risk stratif i cation of patients with pancreatic mass. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007;41:906-910.

36 Zheng M, Liu LX, Zhu AL, Qi SY, Jiang HC, Xiao ZY. K-ras gene mutation in the diagnosis of ultrasound guided fi neneedle biopsy of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2003;9:188-191.

37 Castells A, Puig P, Móra J, Boadas J, Boix L, Urgell E, et al. K-ras mutations in DNA extracted from the plasma of patients with pancreatic carcinoma: diagnostic utility and prognostic signif i cance. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:578-584.

38 Watanabe H, Ha A, Hu YX, Ohtsubo K, Yamaguchi Y, Motoo Y, et al. K-ras mutations in duodenal aspirate without secretin stimulation for screening of pancreatic and biliary tract carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:1441-1448.

39 Wilentz RE, Chung CH, Sturm PD, Musler A, Sohn TA, Offerhaus GJ, et al. K-ras mutations in the duodenal fl uid of patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 1998;82:96-103.

40 Wenger FA, Zieren J, Peter FJ, Jacobi CA, Müller JM. K-ras mutations in tissue and stool samples from patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1999;384:181-186.

41 van Heek T, Rader AE, Offerhaus GJ, McCarthy DM, Goggins M, Hruban RH, et al. K-ras, p53, and DPC4 (MAD4) alterations in fi ne-needle aspirates of the pancreas: a molecular panel correlates with and supplements cytologic diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:755-765.

42 Trümper L, Menges M, Daus H, K?hler D, Reinhard JO, Sackmann M, et al. Low sensitivity of the ki-ras polymerase chain reaction for diagnosing pancreatic cancer from pancreatic juice and bile: a multicenter prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4331-4337.

43 Yan L, McFaul C, Howes N, Leslie J, Lancaster G, Wong T, et al. Molecular analysis to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in high-risk groups. Gastroenterology 2005; 128:2124-2130.

44 Shen J, Brugge WR, Dimaio CJ, Pitman MB. Molecular analysis of pancreatic cyst fl uid: a comparative analysis with current practice of diagnosis. Cancer 2009;117:217-227.

45 Pugliese V, Pujic N, Saccomanno S, Gatteschi B, Pera C, Aste H, et al. Pancreatic intraductal sampling during ERCP in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: cytologic studies and k-ras-2 codon 12 molecular analysis in 47 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:595-599.

46 Urgell E, Puig P, Boadas J, Capellà G, Queraltó JM, Boluda R, et al. Prospective evaluation of the contribution of K-ras mutational analysis and CA 19.9 measurement to cytological diagnosis in patients with clinical suspicion of pancreatic cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2069-2075.

47 Van Laethem JL, Bourgeois V, Parma J, Delhaye M, Cochaux P, Velu T, et al. Relative contribution of Ki-ras gene analysis and brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic diseases. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:479-485.

48 Shi C, Fukushima N, Abe T, Bian Y, Hua L, Wendelburg BJ, et al. Sensitive and quantitative detection of KRAS2 gene mutations in pancreatic duct juice differentiates patients with pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis, potential for early detection. Cancer Biol Ther 2008;7:353-360.

49 Sawabu N, Watanabe H, Yamaguchi Y, Ohtsubo K, Motoo Y. Serum tumor markers and molecular biological diagnosis in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 2004;28:263-267.

50 Futakawa N, Kimura W, Yamagata S, Zhao B, Ilsoo H, Inoue T, et al. Signif i cance of K-ras mutation and CEA level in pancreatic juice in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2000;7:63-71.

51 Khalid A, McGrath KM, Zahid M, Wilson M, Brody D, Swalsky P, et al. The role of pancreatic cyst fl uid molecular analysis in predicting cyst pathology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;3:967-973.

52 Wong T, Howes N, Threadgold J, Smart HL, Lombard MG, Gilmore I, et al. Molecular diagnosis of early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in high-risk patients. Pancreatology 2001;1:486-509.

Received February 27, 2012

Accepted after revision April 15, 2013

AuthorAff i liations:Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China (Liu SL, Chen G, Zhao YP, Wu WM and Zhang TP)

Yu-Pei Zhao, MD, Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China (Tel: 86-10-65296007; Fax: 86-10-65124875; Email: zhaoyp8028@gmail.com)

? 2013, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. All rights reserved.

10.1016/S1499-3872(13)60073-9