MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular Peritoneal Staging for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Using Mutant KRAS Droplet-Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction: Results of a Prospective Clinical Trial

2021· article· en· W3162287933 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Yonkus, Roberto Alva‐Ruiz, Amro M. Abdelrahman, Jennifer L. Leiting, Amber Schneider, Travis E. Grotz, Sean P. Cleary, Rory L. Smoot, David M. Nagorney, Michael L. Kendrick, Benjamin R. Kipp, Mark J. Truty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKRASCytologyProspective cohort studyInternal medicinePeritoneal fluidCytopathologyMalignancyLaparoscopyGastroenterologyAdenocarcinomaPancreatic cancerPathologyOncologyRadiologyCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy with predilection for peritoneal dissemination. Accurate peritoneal staging is imperative for treatment recommendations, as one-third of patients develop peritoneal recurrence after resection. Because >90% of PDAC tumors harbor mutant KRAS (mKRAS), we sought to determine feasibility of mKRAS DNA detection in peritoneal lavage (PL) fluid using droplet-digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) via a prospective trial. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with nonmetastatic PDAC undergoing staging laparoscopy with PL were included. PL fluid was sent for cytologic examination, CA19-9/CEA levels, and mKRAS ddPCR assay. Clinically positive laparoscopy was defined as gross metastases or positive cytology. PL mKRAS status was compared with gross findings, cytology, and CA19-9/CEA levels. RESULTS: There were 136 patients enrolled; 70 of 136 (51%) patients received neoadjuvant therapy before PL, and 32 of 136 (24%) patients had clinically positive laparoscopy. Cytology was positive in 17 of 136 (13%) patients, and 22 of 136 (16%) patients had gross metastases. Of patients with gross metastases, only 8 of 22 (36%) had positive cytology; 97 of 136 (71%) patients had mKRAS in PL. PL mKRAS was present in 27 of 32 (84%) clinically positive laparoscopies, with higher mean copy number in clinically positive patients (643 vs 10, p = 0.02). Peritoneal mKRAS was positive in an additional 70 clinically negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study establishes the feasibility of PL mKRAS detection. Clinically positive disease was identified in 1 in 4 staging laparoscopies. Although PL mKRAS was highly associated with clinically positive findings, many clinically negative laparoscopies had detectable PL mKRAS, suggesting that standard staging may be inadequate. Longer follow-up will elucidate utility of this promising molecular assay.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207