4.7 Article

RNA sequencing distinguishes benign from malignant pancreatic lesions sampled by EUS-guided FNA

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages 252-258

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.042

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the primary method used to obtain pancreatic tissue for preoperative diagnosis. Accumulating evidence suggests diagnostic and prognostic information may be obtained by gene-expression profiling of these biopsy specimens. RNA sequencing (RNAseq) is a newer method of gene-expression profiling, but published data are scant on the use of this method on pancreas tissue obtained via EUS-FNA. The aim of this study was to determine whether RNAseq of EUS-FNA biopsy samples of undiagnosed pancreatic masses can reliably discriminate between benign and malignant tissue. Methods: In this prospective study, consenting adults presented to 2 tertiary care hospitals for EUS of suspected pancreatic mass. Tissue was submitted for RNAseq. The results were compared with cytologic diagnosis, surgical pathology diagnosis, or benign clinical follow-up of at least 1 year. Results: Forty-eight patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions were enrolled. Nine samples were excluded because of inadequate RNA and 3 because of final pathologic diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor. Data from the first 13 patients were used to construct a linear classifier, and this was tested on the final 23 patients (15 malignant and 8 benign lesions). RNAseq of EUS-FNA biopsy samples distinguishes ductal adenocarcinoma from benign pancreatic solid masses with a sensitivity of.87 (range, .58-.98) and specificity of .75 (range, .35-.96). Conclusions: This proof-of-principle study suggests RNAseq of EUS-FNA samples can reliably detect adenocarcinoma and may provide a new method to evaluate more diagnostically challenging pancreatic lesions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available