Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Lewis R. Roberts
Based on 5 articles published since 2010
(Why 5 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Lewis R. Roberts wrote the following 5 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Integrative Genomic Analysis of Cholangiocarcinoma Identifies Distinct IDH-Mutant Molecular Profiles. 2017

Farshidfar, Farshad / Zheng, Siyuan / Gingras, Marie-Claude / Newton, Yulia / Shih, Juliann / Robertson, A Gordon / Hinoue, Toshinori / Hoadley, Katherine A / Gibb, Ewan A / Roszik, Jason / Covington, Kyle R / Wu, Chia-Chin / Shinbrot, Eve / Stransky, Nicolas / Hegde, Apurva / Yang, Ju Dong / Reznik, Ed / Sadeghi, Sara / Pedamallu, Chandra Sekhar / Ojesina, Akinyemi I / Hess, Julian M / Auman, J Todd / Rhie, Suhn K / Bowlby, Reanne / Borad, Mitesh J / Anonymous5350899 / Zhu, Andrew X / Stuart, Josh M / Sander, Chris / Akbani, Rehan / Cherniack, Andrew D / Deshpande, Vikram / Mounajjed, Taofic / Foo, Wai Chin / Torbenson, Michael S / Kleiner, David E / Laird, Peter W / Wheeler, David A / McRee, Autumn J / Bathe, Oliver F / Andersen, Jesper B / Bardeesy, Nabeel / Roberts, Lewis R / Kwong, Lawrence N. ·Departments of Surgery and Oncology, Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada. · Departments of Genomic Medicine, Melanoma Medical Oncology, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Pathology, and Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. · Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. · University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. · The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. · Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4S6, Canada. · Center for Epigenetics, Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, USA. · Departments of Genetics and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. · Blueprint Medicines, 38 Sidney Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. · Divisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10005, USA. · University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA; HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA. · The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. · Departments of Genetics and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. · USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. · Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA. · Departments of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. · Departments of Pathology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. · National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. · Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. · Biotech Research and Innovation Centre, Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2200, Denmark. Electronic address: jesper.andersen@bric.ku.dk. · Departments of Pathology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. Electronic address: bardeesy.nabeel@mgh.harvard.edu. · Divisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Electronic address: roberts.lewis@mayo.edu. · Departments of Genomic Medicine, Melanoma Medical Oncology, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Pathology, and Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: lkwong@mdanderson.org. ·Cell Rep · Pubmed #28297679.

ABSTRACT: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is an aggressive malignancy of the bile ducts, with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Here, we describe the integrated analysis of somatic mutations, RNA expression, copy number, and DNA methylation by The Cancer Genome Atlas of a set of predominantly intrahepatic CCA cases and propose a molecular classification scheme. We identified an IDH mutant-enriched subtype with distinct molecular features including low expression of chromatin modifiers, elevated expression of mitochondrial genes, and increased mitochondrial DNA copy number. Leveraging the multi-platform data, we observed that ARID1A exhibited DNA hypermethylation and decreased expression in the IDH mutant subtype. More broadly, we found that IDH mutations are associated with an expanded histological spectrum of liver tumors with molecular features that stratify with CCA. Our studies reveal insights into the molecular pathogenesis and heterogeneity of cholangiocarcinoma and provide classification information of potential therapeutic significance.

2 Article Metformin Use and Survival of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: A Cautionary Lesson. 2016

Chaiteerakij, Roongruedee / Petersen, Gloria M / Bamlet, William R / Chaffee, Kari G / Zhen, David B / Burch, Patrick A / Leof, Emma R / Roberts, Lewis R / Oberg, Ann L. ·Roongruedee Chaiteerakij and Lewis R. Roberts, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center · Gloria M. Petersen, William R. Bamlet, Kari G. Chaffee, David B. Zhen, Patrick A. Burch, Emma R. Leof, and Ann L. Oberg, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN · Roongruedee Chaiteerakij, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand · and David B. Zhen, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27069086.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The inclusion of metformin in the treatment arms of cancer clinical trials is based on improved survival that has been demonstrated in retrospective epidemiologic studies; however, unintended biases may exist when analysis is performed by using a conventional Cox proportional hazards regression model with dichotomous ever/never categorization. We examined the impact of metformin exposure definitions, analytical methods, and patient selection on the estimated effect size of metformin exposure on survival in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of newly diagnosed patients with PDAC with diabetes, 980 were retrospectively included, and exposure to metformin documented. Median survival was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were computed to compare time-varying covariate analysis with conventional Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: Median survival of metformin users versus nonusers was 9.9 versus 8.9 months, respectively. By the time-varying covariate analysis, metformin use was not statistically significantly associated with improved survival (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to1.07; P = .28). There was no evidence of benefit in the subset of patients who were naïve to metformin at the time of PDAC diagnosis (most representative of patients enrolled in clinical trials; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30; P = .89); however, when the analysis was performed by using the conventional Cox model, an artificial survival benefit of metformin was detected (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.01; P = .08), which suggested biased results from the conventional Cox analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings did not suggest the benefit of metformin use after patients are diagnosed with PDAC. We highlight the importance of patient selection and appropriate statistical analytical methods when studying medication exposure and cancer survival.

3 Article Fluorescence in situ hybridization compared with conventional cytology for the diagnosis of malignant biliary tract strictures in Asian patients. 2016

Chaiteerakij, Roongruedee / Barr Fritcher, Emily G / Angsuwatcharakon, Phonthep / Ridtitid, Wiriyaporn / Chaithongrat, Supakarn / Leerapun, Apinya / Baron, Todd H / Kipp, Benjamin R / Henry, Michael R / Halling, Kevin C / Rerknimitr, Rungsun / Roberts, Lewis R. ·Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. · Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. · Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. · Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #26684604.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has improved the diagnostic performance of cytology for the evaluation of malignant biliary strictures in the United States and Europe. The utility of FISH for the diagnosis of biliary strictures in Asia is currently unknown. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of FISH and conventional cytology for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures in Thai patients. METHODS: A prospective study was performed at 2 university hospitals between 2010 and 2013. Patients being evaluated for malignant-appearing biliary strictures were included (N = 99). Bile duct brushings were collected and assessed by cytology and FISH. Sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals of cytology and FISH were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The overall sensitivities of cytology and FISH were 38% and 55%, respectively (P = .001). For those with a diagnosis of cancer based on clinical evidence without biopsy confirmation (n = 44), the sensitivities of cytology and FISH were 43% and 57%, respectively (P = .06). For the 49 patients for whom a cancer diagnosis was confirmed by pathology, FISH had a significantly higher sensitivity than cytology, with a sensitivity of 53% versus 33%, respectively (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: FISH improves the diagnostic performance of cytology and can be used as a complementary tool to bile duct brushing and biopsy for the evaluation of malignancy in biliary strictures in Asian populations.

4 Article An Optimized Set of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Probes for Detection of Pancreatobiliary Tract Cancer in Cytology Brush Samples. 2015

Barr Fritcher, Emily G / Voss, Jesse S / Brankley, Shannon M / Campion, Michael B / Jenkins, Sarah M / Keeney, Matthew E / Henry, Michael R / Kerr, Sarah M / Chaiteerakij, Roongruedee / Pestova, Ekaterina V / Clayton, Amy C / Zhang, Jun / Roberts, Lewis R / Gores, Gregory J / Halling, Kevin C / Kipp, Benjamin R. ·Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. · Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. · Abbott Molecular, Inc, Des Plaines, Illinois. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. · Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: kipp.benjamin@mayo.edu. ·Gastroenterology · Pubmed #26327129.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pancreatobiliary cancer is detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of pancreatobiliary brush samples with UroVysion probes, originally designed to detect bladder cancer. We designed a set of new probes to detect pancreatobiliary cancer and compared its performance with that of UroVysion and routine cytology analysis. METHODS: We tested a set of FISH probes on tumor tissues (cholangiocarcinoma or pancreatic carcinoma) and non-tumor tissues from 29 patients. We identified 4 probes that had high specificity for tumor vs non-tumor tissues; we called this set of probes pancreatobiliary FISH. We performed a retrospective analysis of brush samples from 272 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for evaluation of malignancy at the Mayo Clinic; results were available from routine cytology and FISH with UroVysion probes. Archived residual specimens were retrieved and used to evaluate the pancreatobiliary FISH probes. Cutoff values for FISH with the pancreatobiliary probes were determined using 89 samples and validated in the remaining 183 samples. Clinical and pathologic evidence of malignancy in the pancreatobiliary tract within 2 years of brush sample collection was used as the standard; samples from patients without malignancies were used as negative controls. The validation cohort included 85 patients with malignancies (46.4%) and 114 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (62.3%). Samples containing cells above the cutoff for polysomy (copy number gain of ≥2 probes) were classified as positive in FISH with the UroVysion and pancreatobiliary probes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations between clinical and pathology findings and results from FISH. RESULTS: The combination of FISH probes 1q21, 7p12, 8q24, and 9p21 identified cancer cells with 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity in pancreatobiliary tissue samples and were therefore included in the pancreatobiliary probe set. In the validation cohort of brush samples, pancreatobiliary FISH identified samples from patients with malignancy with a significantly higher level of sensitivity (64.7%) than the UroVysion probes (45.9%) (P < .001) or routine cytology analysis (18.8%) (P < .001), but similar specificity (92.9%, 90.8%, and 100.0% respectively). Factors significantly associated with detection of carcinoma, in adjusted analyses, included detection of polysomy by pancreatobiliary FISH (P < .001), a mass by cross-sectional imaging (P < .001), cancer cells by routine cytology (overall P = .003), as well as absence of primary sclerosing cholangitis (P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of FISH probes that detects cancer cells in pancreatobiliary brush samples from patients with and without primary sclerosing cholangitis with higher levels of sensitivity than UroVysion probes. Cytologic brushing test results and clinical features were independently associated with detection of cancer and might be used to identify patients with pancreatobiliary cancers.

5 Article Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis and FISH for detecting pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology specimens collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. 2010

Kipp, Benjamin R / Fritcher, Emily G Barr / Clayton, Amy C / Gores, Gregory J / Roberts, Lewis R / Zhang, Jun / Levy, Michael J / Halling, Kevin C. ·Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. ·J Mol Diagn · Pubmed #20864634.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatobiliary tract strictures result either from malignancies of the biliary tract and pancreas or from nonmalignant etiopathogenesis. The goal of this study was to determine whether KRAS mutations could be identified in residual pancreatobiliary stricture brushings and to compare the performance characteristics of KRAS mutation analysis to cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of carcinoma. Residual brushing cytology cell pellets were retrieved from 132 patients with subsequent clinicopathologic follow-up of cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 35), gallbladder cancer (n = 2), and nonmalignant strictures (n = 54). All specimens had a prior cytology and FISH UroVysion results as part of clinical practice. KRAS mutation analysis was performed using the quantitative PCR DxS KRAS Mutation Test Kit. KRAS mutation analysis was successful in 130 of 132 specimens. KRAS mutations and polysomic (ie, positive) FISH results were identified in 24 (69%) and 22 (63%) pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens, respectively, with a combined sensitivity of 86% (30/35). KRAS mutations and polysomic FISH results were identified in 12 (29%) and 17 (41%) cholangiocarcinoma specimens, with a combined sensitivity of 54% (22/41). KRAS mutations were identified in two patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis, and benign follow-up. Residual cytology specimens can be used to detect KRAS mutations by quantitative PCR. Combined KRAS mutation and FISH analysis appear to increase the cancer detection rate in patients with pancreatobiliary strictures.