Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Franco Bazzoli
Based on 1 article published since 2010
(Why 1 article?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Franco Bazzoli wrote the following article about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. 2013

Fuccio, Lorenzo / Hassan, Cesare / Laterza, Liboria / Correale, Loredana / Pagano, Nico / Bocus, Paolo / Fabbri, Carlo / Maimone, Antonella / Cennamo, Vincenzo / Repici, Alessandro / Costamagna, Guido / Bazzoli, Franco / Larghi, Alberto. ·Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #23660563.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC. DESIGN: We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. SETTING: Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies. PATIENTS: Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. INTERVENTION: K-ras mutation analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%. LIMITATIONS: Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.