A48 USE OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATE AND ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY FOR DETECTION OF GATA6 EXPRESSON IN PANCREATIC DUCTAL ADENOCARINCOMA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background GATA6 is a transcription factor that can be used to distinguish between the basal-like and classical subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The basal-like subtype has been demonstrated to be less responsive to modified FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy and thus can be used to predict response to specific chemotherapies. To date, GATA6 expression has only been evaluated in surgically resected PDAC specimens. Less than 15% of patients with PDAC are eligible for surgery. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspirate (EUS-FNA) and biopsy (EUS-FNB) can potentially help assess GATA6 expression in PDAC and in turn, help guide personalized treatment selection in all cases of PDAC. Aims The primary objective of this study was to explore the yield of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the detection of GATA6 among patients with PDAC. The study also aimed to explore the impact of lesion location on sample adequacy and type of fixative on validity of GATA6 staining. Methods This study was conducted from November 2017 to October 2019. Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of PDAC confirmed by biopsy were included. Patients underwent either EUS-FNB or EUS-FNA to obtain tissues samples. Samples were fixed in either neutral buffered formalin (NBF) or a methanol based buffered solution (Cytolyt) and evaluated by a specialized cytopathology team. Fisher’s exact test was used and a p-value ≤0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results Forty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty-three (52%) patients were male and the median age of patients was 67.5 years. Twenty-five lesions were located in the head and neck of the pancreas, 14 were located in the body, and 4 were located in the tail. One patient was found to have a local recurrence of PDAC at the surgical bed of a previous Whipple procedure. Eighteen lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA and 26 were sampled using EUS-FNB. Thirty-eight (86%) samples were adequate for assessment of GATA6. Sampling technique (p=0.68) and fixative type (p=1.00) did not appear to affect sample adequacy. Compared to pancreatic body or tail specimens, samples obtained from the head or neck of the pancreas were more likely to be inadequate for analysis (p=0.03). Conclusions EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB samples are efficacious methods of assessing GATA6 expression in PDAC. This is the first predictor of treatment response that has been demonstrated to be obtained without surgical resection. Neither EUS needle type or alcohol fixation before cell block preparation appear to impact GATA6 detection. Lesions in the pancreatic head or neck appear to be associated with higher rates of sample inadequacy. Larger, prospective studies are required to confirm our findings. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».