PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of f1000resSubmitAuthor GuidelinesAboutAdvisory PanelF1000ResearchView this article
 
Version 1. F1000Res. 2017; 6: 1643.
Published online 2017 September 5. doi:  10.12688/f1000research.11371.1
PMCID: PMC5585877

Novel biomarkers and endoscopic techniques for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancy

Abstract

The UK incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 9 per 100,000 population, and biliary tract cancer occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000. The incidence of both cancers is increasing annually and these tumours continue to be diagnosed late and at an advanced stage, limiting options for curative treatment. Population-based screening programmes do not exist for these cancers, and diagnosis currently is dependent on symptom recognition, but often symptoms are not present until the disease is advanced. Recently, a number of promising blood and urine biomarkers have been described for pancreaticobiliary malignancy and are summarised in this review. Novel endoscopic techniques such as single-operator cholangioscopy and confocal endomicroscopy have been used in some centres to enhance standard endoscopic diagnostic techniques and are also evaluated in this review.

Keywords: Pancreaticobiliary malignancy, Endoscopic retrograde, cholangiopancreatography, CA 19-9, pancreatic, biliary

Introduction

In the UK, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the 10 th commonest cancer and has an incidence of 9 per 100,000 population 1, and biliary tract cancer (BTC) (including intra- and extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer) has an incidence of 1–2 cases per 100,000 population 2. Long-term survival is poor; 5-year survival is less than 4% for both tumours 3, 4. Often these tumours are diagnosed late, when patients have advanced disease and curative surgical resection is no longer possible.

Globally the highest incidence of PDAC is seen in Northern Europe and North America 5, where the rates are 3 to 4 times higher than in tropical countries 6. Overall incidence is increasing 5, and as most tumours are sporadic, this rising incidence is attributed to differences in lifestyles and exposure to environmental risk factors 7, such as smoking 815, diabetes mellitus, chronic pancreatitis 1, 15, 16 and obesity 17.

In BTC, the variations in incidence seen globally are even more pronounced; and the highest incidence is in northeastern Thailand (96 per 100,000 men) 18, which has a population with high levels of chronic typhoid and infestation of liver fluke ( Clonorchis sinensis and Opisthorchis viverinni) 18. Other BTC risk factors seen in all populations include older age 18, primary sclerosing cholangitis 19, intraductal stones and rare biliary cystic diseases 20. Inflammatory bowel disease, chronic viral hepatitis, cirrhosis, smoking, diabetes, obesity and excess alcohol consumption may also increase the risk of BTC 2022.

Despite improved diagnostic techniques, detecting pancreaticobiliary malignancy remains a significant clinical challenge. A common presentation of these tumours is a biliary stricture with or without a mass lesion. The differential of an indeterminate biliary stricture is broad, and often the associated symptoms and radiological findings overlap between benign and malignant conditions, often making differentiation—particularly between cancer, primary sclerosing cholangitis and IgG4-related disease—impossible without further investigations, typically by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) 2325. However, biliary brush cytology is also an imperfect test, although specificity is high (96–100%), sensitivity for malignancy remains low (9–57%) and in early disease when tumours are small, sensitivities are even lower 26, 27. Therefore, patients frequently require multiple procedures to obtain a final diagnosis 2830.

So there has been growing interest in the development of simple tests to streamline the diagnosis to pancreaticobiliary malignancy and guide appropriate and timely therapy for patients. Identifying better diagnostic tools for PDAC and BTC would also make screening and surveillance possible, particularly in high-risk populations 4, 8, 31. This would enable the detection of tumours at an earlier stage when curative resection is possible, leading to substantial improvements in survival 32. This review provides an overview of the latest innovations in diagnostic biomarkers and endoscopic techniques for pancreaticobiliary malignancy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature by using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The search was limited to studies published in the English language between January 2013 and March 2017. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were decided by a consensus of the authors and included “pancreatic cancer” or “cholangiocarcinoma” and “biomarker”. The search was restricted to title, abstract and keywords. Articles that described outcomes for fewer than five patients were excluded. Case reports, abstracts and reviews were excluded. All references were screened for potentially relevant studies not identified in the initial literature search.

The following variables were extracted for each report when available: number of malignant and benign cases, sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC). One hundred ten articles were included in the final review.

Biomarkers

1. Serum biomarkers and blood tests

Carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 is the most widely used tumour marker in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Overall sensitivity (78–89%) and specificity (67–87%) are low, and in around 7% of the population who lack the Lewis (a) antigen, CA19-9 will remain negative 33. In small tumours, sensitivity decreases further. The marker can also be elevated in a number of other malignant diseases (for example, gastric adenocarcinoma) and benign diseases, particularly those causing jaundice (for example, primary biliary cirrhosis, cholestasis and cholangitis), and in smokers 34. In addition, variation has been reported among commercially available assays, which may impact on interpretation 35. Therefore, to improve the sensitivity of the marker in current clinical practice, it is always interpreted in the context of cross-sectional imaging findings 33.

Other commercially available tumour markers that have a role in diagnosing pancreaticobiliary cancer include carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA125. CEA is a glycosyl phosphatidyl inositol cell surface-anchored glycoprotein that is involved in cell adhesion. When elevated, it is highly suggestive of colorectal cancer, but it is also increased in about a third of patients with BTC 3638. CA125 is a protein encoded by the MUC16 gene and is a large membrane-associated glycoprotein with a single transmembrane domain. When elevated, it is suggestive of ovarian cancer, but it is also increased in about 40–50% of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy, particularly when there is peritoneal involvement 38.

Owing to the limitations of existing biomarkers, over the last few years several studies have evaluated various combinations of biomarkers to supplement or ultimately replace existing biomarkers. Biomarker panels using combinations of markers, often including CA19-9, have been particularly successful in detecting small tumours and early disease. Validation studies have also shown that these markers can differentiate PDAC from relevant benign conditions and in some cases detect tumours up to 1 year prior to diagnosis with a specificity of 95% and a sensitivity of 68% 7 ( Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1.

Serum protein biomarkers for biliary tract cancer, 2013–2017.
Author (year)Biomarker/
Combination
(serum)
Biliary tract
cancer, number
Benign lesion/
cholangitis,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
SensitivitySpecificityArea
under the
curve
Single biomarkers
Han et al. (2013) 84 HDGF83-5166%88%0.81
Ruzzenente et al. (2014) 85 MUC5AC492316--0.91
Voigtlander et al. (2014) 86 Angpt-256111-74%94%0.85
Lumachi et al. (2014) 87 CA 19-92425-74%82%-
Wang et al. (2014) 88 CA 19-978787872%96%-
Lumachi et al. (2014) 87 CEA2425-52%55%-
Wang et al. (2014) 88 CEA78787811%97%-
Wang et al. (2014) 88 CA 12578787845%96%-
Lumachi et al. (2014) 87 CYFRA 21-12425-76%79%-
Liu et al. (2015) 89 VEGF-C31101071%80%0.79
Liu et al. (2015) 89 VEGF-D31101074%85%0.84
Huang et al. (2015) 90 CYFRA 21-113452-75%85%-
Lumachi et al. (2014) 87 MMP72425-78%77%-
Nigam et al. (2014) 91 Survivin39 (gallbladder
cancer)
302581%80%-
Rucksaken et al. (2014) 92 HSP70 31
122394%
74%
0.92
Rucksaken et al. (2014) 92 ENO1 31-2381%78%0.86
Rucksaken et al. (2014) 92 RNH1 31-2394%67%0.84
Wang et al. (2014) 88 CA242 78787864%99%-
Ince et al. (2014) 93 VEGFR396129-48%82%0.62
Ince et al. (2014) 93 TAC96129-61%60%0.60
Rucksaken et al. (2017) 94 ORM270462092%74%-
Rose et al. (2016) 95 CEACAM64142-87.5%69%0.74
Jiao et al. (2014) 96 Nucleosides202 (gallbladder
cancer)
20320591%96%-
Biomarker combinations
Lumachi et al. (2014) 87 CEA + CA19-9 +
CYFRA 21-1 + MMP7
2425-92%96%

Table 2.

Serum protein biomarkers for pancreatic cancer, 2012–2017.
Author (year)Biomarker/
Combination
(serum)
PDAC, numberBenign
controls,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
SensitivitySpecificityArea
under
the
curve
Single biomarkers
Sogawa et al. (2016) 97 C4BPA52204067%95%0.860
Rychlikova et al. (2016) 98 Osteopontin647148---
Lin et al. (2016) 99 APOA-I78-3696%72.2%0.880
Lin et al. (2016) 99 TF78-3675%72.8%0.760
Guo et al. (2016) 100 Dysbindin25080 15081.9%84.7%0.849
Han et al. (2015) 101 Dickkopf-1 140-9289.3%79.3%0.919
Qu et al. (2015) 102 DCLK17474---0.740
Dong et al. (2015) 103 Survivin80-80---
Gebauer et al. (2014) 104 EpCAM664310466.7%77.5%-
Wang et al. (2014) 105 MIC-180716550065.8%96.4%0.935
Kendrick et al. (2014) 106 IGFBP28440 8422%95%0.655
Kendrick et al. (2014) 106 MSLN8440 8417%95%0.668
Kang et al. (2014) 107 COL6A3444630--0.975
Willumsen et al. (2013) 108 C1M15-33--0.830
Willumsen et al. (2013) 108 C3M15-33--0.880
Willumsen et al. (2013) 108 C4M15-33--0.940
Willumsen et al. (2013) 108 C4M12a115-33--0.890
Falco et al. (2013) 109 BAG352-4475%75%0.770
Falco et al. (2013) 109 BAG35217 (chronic
pancreatitis)
-81%77%0.810
Chen et al. (2013) 110 TTR40-4091%47%0.730
Gold et al. (2013) 111 PAM4298-7976%96%-
Gold et al. (2013) 111 PAM4298120---0.890
Poruk et al. (2013) 112 OPN864886--0.720
Poruk et al. (2013) 112 TIMP-1864886--0.770
Lee et al. (2014) 113 CA 19-941124480.4%70%0.833
Lee et al. (2014) 113 Human
complement
factor B (CFB)
41124473.1%97.9%0.958
Mixed cohorts
Ince et al. (2014) 93 CEA96 (41 PDAC +25 BTC)129-42.7%89.9%0.713
Ince et al. (2014) 93 CA19-996 (41 PDAC +25 BTC)129-49%84.5%0.701
Ince et al. (2014) 93 VEGFR396 (41 PDAC +25 BTC)129-48.4%82.9%0.622
Ince et al. (2014) 93 Total antioxidant
capacity
96 (41 PDAC +25 BTC)129-61.1%60.5%0.602
Abdel-Razik et al. (2016) 114 IGF-147 (25 PDAC + 18 BTC)62-62%51%0.605
Abdel-Razik et al. (2016) 114 VEGF47 (25 PDAC + 18 BTC)62-58.3%57.3%0.544
Biomarker combinations
Chen et al. (2013) 110 TTR + CA19-940-4081%85%0.910
Lee et al. (2014) 113 CA19-9 + CFB41124490.1%97.2%0.986
Sogawa et al. (2016) 97 C4BPA + CA19-952204086%80%0.930
Makawita et al. (2013) 115 CA19-9 + REG1B100-92--0.880
Makawita et al. (2013) 115 CA19-9 + SYCN
+ REG1B
100-92--0.870
Willumsen et al. (2013) 108 C1M + C3M +
C4M + C4M12a1
15-33--0.990
Shaw et al. (2014) 116 IL10 + IL6 +
PDGF + Ca19-9
8445 (benign)-93%58%0.840
Shaw et al. (2014) 116 IL8 + IL6 +
IL-10 + Ca19-9
8432 (chronic
pancreatitis)
-75%91%0.880
Shaw et al. (2014) 116 IL8 + IL1b +
Ca 19-9
127-4594%100%0.857
Brand et al. (2011) 117 Ca-19 + CEA +
TIMP-1
1737012071%89%-
Capello et al. (2017) 118 TIMP1 + LRG1
+ Ca19-9
73-600.849%0.633%0.949
Capello et al. (2017) 118 TIMP1 + LRG1
+ Ca19-9
7374-0.452%0.541%0.890
Chan et al. (2014) 119 Ca19-9 + Ca125
+ LAMC2
139651082%74%%0.870
Makawita et al. (2013) 115 CA19-9 + REG1B824192--0.875
Makawita et al. (2013) 115 CA19-9 + SYNC
+ REG1B
824192--0.873
Makawita et al. (2013) 115 CA19-9 + AGR2
+ REG1B
824192--0.869

BTC, biliary tract cancer; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

In pancreaticobiliary malignancy and PDAC in particular, metastatic disease occurs at a very early stage in tumour development. This is demonstrated by the fact that patients who underwent resection of small primary tumours (<2 cm) with no clinical evidence of metastatic disease had a 5-year survival after pancreatectomy of less than 18% owing to recurrent metastatic disease 39. Tumour development is driven by a series of cumulative genetic abnormalities; therefore, genetic and epigenetic changes have been explored as diagnostic targets in circulating tumour cells, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and non-coding RNA ( Table 3Table 5). Owing to the position and composition of pancreaticobiliary tumours, tissue samples are frequently acellular, making diagnostics challenging. Recently, the utility of next-generation sequencing was explored as a technique that allows the detection of low-abundance mutations and abnormalities in small amounts of material 40. Changes in the metabalome are also being explored as a potential diagnostic tool in pancreaticobiliary malignancy 41.

Table 3.

Genetic and epigenetic alterations in circulating tumour cells in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and biliary tract cancer, 2013–2017.
Author (year)TargetBiliary
tract
cancer,
number
Pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma,
number
Benign
lesions,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
DetectedSensitivitySpecificityArea
under
the
curve
Ankeny et al. (2016) 120 K-ras-7228--75%96.4%0.867
Kulemann et al. (2016) 121 K-ras-21-1080% (stage IIA/IIB)
91% (stage III/IV)
---
Singh et al. (2015) 122 ctDNA,
K-ras
-----65.3%61.5%0.6681
Kinugasa et al. (2015) 123 K-ras -14120 20-62.6%--
Takai et al. (2015) 124 K-ras-259---29.2%--
Sausen et al. (2015) 125 ctDNA-77---43%--
Kulemann et al. (2015) 126 CTC
K-ras
-11-975% (stage IIb)
71% (stage III)
---
Zhang et al. (2015) 127 DAPI +, CD45-,
CK +,
CEP8 > 2 +
-22
Validation cohort:
11
6

8
30

10
68.2%


63.6%



94.4%



0.84
Wu et al. (2014) 128 K-ras-36-25-00-
Bidard et al. (2013) 129 CK,
CD45
-79--11%---
Bobek et al. (2014) 130 DAPI,
CK,
CEA, Vimentin
-24--66.7%---
Rhim et al. (2014) 131 DAPI, CD45,
CK,
PDX-1
-1121 1978% ---
Iwanicki-Caron et al. (2013) 132 CTC-40---55.5%100%-
Sheng et al. (2014) 133 CTC-18--94.4%---
Catebacci et al. (2015) 134 CTC (in portal venous
blood at EUS)
214--100% (pulmonary vein blood)
22.2% (peripheral blood)
---
Earl et al. (2015) 135 CTC-35--20%---
Cauley et al. (2015) 136 Circulating epithelial
cells
-10534949%---
Kamande et al. (2013) 137 DAPI, CD45,
CK
-12--100%---

Table 4.

Genetic and epigenetic alterations in circulating cell-free DNA pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and biliary tract cancer, 2013–2017.
Author (year)TargetPDAC
or BTC
Cancer,
number
Benign
lesions,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
DetectedSensitivitySpecificity
Takai et al. (2016) 138 K-rasPDAC107 (non-
operable)
--59%--
Takai et al. (2015) 124 cfDNAPDAC4829% 
Hadano et al. (2016) 139 K-rasPDAC105-2031%--
Zill et al. (2015) 140 K-ras, TP53,
APC, FBXW7,
SMAD4
PDAC26---92.3%100%
Earl et al. (2015) 135 K-rasPDAC31--26%--
Kinusaga et al. (2015) 123 G12V, G12D,
and G12R in
codon 12 of
K-ras gene
PDAC141202062%--
Sausen et al. (2015) 125 cfDNAPDAC77--43%--
Wu et al. (2014) 128 K-rasPDAC24-2572%--

BTC, biliary tract cancer; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Table 5.

Epigenetics: circulating non-coding RNA and DNA methylation markers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/biliary tract cancer, 2013–2017.
Author (year)MicroRNABiliary
tract
cancer,
number
Pancreatic
ductal
adenocarcinoma,
number
Benign
lesions,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
SensitivitySpecificityArea
under
the
curve
Circulating non-coding RNA
Kishimoto et al. (2013) 141 MiR-21 (↑)94
94
-
-
-
23
50
-
85%
72.3%
100%
91.3%
0.93
0.83
Wang et al. (2013) 142 miR-27a-3p + CA19-9(↑)-1291036085.3%81.6%0.886
Kawaguchi et al. (2013) 143 miR-221 (↑),
miR-375 (↓)
-47-30--0.762
Zhao et al. (2013) 144 miR-192 (↑)-70-4076%55%0.63
Carleson et al. (2013) 145 MiR-375 (↑)-4847 ---0.72
Que et al. (2013) 146 miR-17-5p (↑)
miR-21 (↑),
-22128--0.887
0.897
Schultz et al. (2014) 147 Index I + CA19-9
Index II + CA19-9
-4092531285%
85%
88%
86%
0.93
0.92
Silakit et al. (2014) 148 MiR-192 (↑)11--974%72%0.803
Lin et al. (2015) 149 MiR-492 (↑)
MiR-663a (↑)
-49-2775%
85%
70%
80%
0.787
0.870
Chen et al. (2014) 150 miR-182 (↑)-109385064.1%82.6%0.775
Wang et al. (2015) 151 MiR-150 (↑)15--1580%58%0.764
Ganepola et al. (2015) 152 miR-22 (↑),
miR-642b (↑)
miR-885-5p (↑)
-11-1191%91%0.970
Voigtlander et al. (2015) 153
(serum)
MiR-1281 (↑)
MiR-126 (↑)
MiR-26a (↑)
MiR-30b (↑)
MiR-122 (↑)
31-40-55%
68%
52%
52%
32%
90%
93%
93%
88%
90%
0.83
0.87
0.78
0.78
0.65
Voigtlander et al. (2015) 153
(bile)
miR-412 (↑)
miR-640 (↑)
miR-1537 (↑)
miR-3189 (↑)
31-53-50%
50%
67%
67%
89%
92%
90%
89%
0.81
0.81
0.78
0.80
Abue et al. (2015) 154 miR-21 (↑),
miR-483-3p (↑)
-321230--0.790
0.754
Salter et al. (2015) 155 miR-196a (↑),
miR-196b (↑)
-191010100%90%0.99
Kojima et al. (2015) 156 miR-6075,
miR-4294,
miR-6880-5p,
miR-6799-5p,
miR-125a-3p,
miR-4530,
miR-6836-3p,
miR-4476
981002115080.3%97.6%0.953
Xu et al. (2015) 157 miR-486-5p (↑)
miR-938 (↑)
-15614265--0.861
0.693
Madhaven et al. (2015) 158 PaCIC + miRNA
serum-exosome
marker panel
----100%80%-
Komatsu et al. (2015) 159 miR-223 (↑)-71-6762%94.1%0.834
Alemar et al. (2016) 160 MiR-21 (↑)
MiR-34a (↑)
-24-10--0.889
0.865
Wu et al. (2016) 161 MiR-150 (↓)303028 50---
Bernuzzi et al. (2016) 162 MiR-483-5p(↑)
MiR-194(↑)
404070 40--0.77
0.74
Kim et al. (2016) 163 mRNA – CDH3 (↑)
mRNA –IGF2BP3(↑)
mRNA – HOXB7 (↑)
mRNA – BIRC5 (↑)
-2114-57.1%
76.2%
71.4%
76.2%
64.3%
100%
57.1%
64.3%
0.776
0.476
0.898
0.818
Duell et al. (2017) 164 MiR-10a (↑)
MiR-10b (↑)
MiR-21-5p (↑)
MiR-30c (↑)
MiR-155 (↑)
MiR-212 (↑)
-225-225--0.66
0.68
0.64
0.71
0.64
0.64
DNA hypermethylation
Branchi et al. (2016) 165 SHOX2/ SEPT9 20--1000.45%0.99%0.752

2. Bile and biliary brush biomarkers

Patients with an indeterminate stricture on cross-sectional imaging are typically referred for an ERCP and biliary brushing with or without endobilary biopsy to obtain tissue for diagnosis, with or without therapeutic stenting 28. Although these techniques do not compromise resection margins in potentially resectable cases, sensitivity remains low (9–57%) and patients frequently have to undergo multiple procedures to obtain a diagnosis 2830. Bile can be easily obtained at the time of ERCP and, owing to its proximity to the tumour, is a potentially important source of diagnostic biomarkers in these cancers ( Table 6). Unfortunately, owing to the invasiveness of ERCP, the role of these biomarkers is limited to diagnosis rather than screening or surveillance in these tumours.

Table 6.

Bile and biliary brush biomarkers for pancreatic and biliary tract cancer.
Author (year)BiomarkerPancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma,
number
Biliary tract
cancer,
number
Benign
lesions,
number
Healthy
controls,
number
Bile or
biliary
brush
SensitivitySpecificityArea
under
the
curve
Single biomarkers
Dhar et al. (2013) 166 M2-PK-887917Bile90.3%84.3%-
Navaneethan
et al. (2015) 167
M2-PK----Bile52.9%94.1%0.77
Keane (2017) 168 MCM5241747Biliary
brush
55.6%77.8%0.79
Danese et al.
(2014) 169
MUC5AC-2020-Serum
Bile
--0.94
0.99
Farina et al.
(2014) 170
CEAM623612-Bile93%83%0.92
Budzynska et al.
(2013) 171
NGAL61618-Bile77%72%0.74
Jiao et al. (2014) 96 Nucleosides202
(gallbladder
cancer)
203205Bile95.3%96.4%-
Ince et al. (2014) 93 CE4125129-Bile57.3%68.2%0.516
Ince et al. (2014) 93 CA 19-94125129-Bile74.0%34.1%0.616
Ince et al. (2014) 93 VEGFR34125129-Bile56.2%79.1%0.663
Ince et al. (2014) 93 Total antioxidant
capacity
4125129-Bile65.6%50.4%0.581
Abdel-Razik et al.
(2016) 114
IGF-1251862-Bile91.4%89.5%0.943
Abdel-Razik et al.
(2016) 114
VEGF251862-Bile90.3%84.9%0.915
Kim et al. (2016) 163 mRNA – CDH3 (↑)
mRNA –IGF2BP3(↑)
mRNA – HOXB7 (↑)
mRNA – BIRC5 (↑)
-2114-Biliary
brush
57.1%
76.2%
71.4%
76.2%
64.3%
100%
57.1%
64.3%
0.776
0.476
0.898
0.818

3. Urinary biomarkers

Urine provides a very easy and acceptable source for biomarker analysis. In BTC, a 42-peptide panel (consisting mostly of fragments of interstitial collagens) correctly identified 35 of 42 BTC patients with a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 79% 42. In PDAC, the three-biomarker panel (LYVE-1, REG1A and TFF1) has been validated in a multi-centre cohort of 371 samples. When comparing PDAC stage I–IIA (resectable disease) with healthy urines, the panel achieved AUCs of 0.97 (95% confidence interval of 0.93–1.00). The performance of the urine biomarker panel in discriminating PDAC stage I–IIA was superior to the performance of serum CA19-9 ( P=0.006) 43 ( Table 7).

Table 7.

Summary of urine protein biomarkers for pancreatic and biliary tract cancer, 2013–2017.
Author (year)Biomarker/
Combination
(urine)
Pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma,
number
Biliary tract
cancer,
number
Benign
cancer/
Chronic
pancreatitis,
number
Healthy
volunteers,
number
SensitivitySpecificityArea
under
the
curve
Single biomarker
Roy et al. (2014) 172 MMP251--6070%85%-
Roy et al. (2014) 172 TIMP-151--6090%70%-
Jiao et al. (2014) 96 Nucleosides-202
(gallbladder
cancer)
20320589.4%97.1%-
Metzger et al. (2013) 42 Urine Proteomic
analysis
-4281-83%79%0.87
Biomarker combinations
Radon et al. (2015) 43 LYVE-1 +
REG1A + TFF1
192--87--0.89

4. Symptoms and cancer decision support tools

Recently, pre-diagnostic symptom profiles have been investigated as an alternative way of detecting hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers at an early stage 8, 9, 16, 44. It is now recognised that the onset of PDAC and BTC is heralded by a collection of gastrointestinal and constitutional symptoms 45. Although overlap occurs with other benign and malignant conditions, certain symptoms such as back pain, lethargy and new-onset diabetes have been identified as particularly suggestive of PDAC. Commonly performed blood tests such as liver function tests, glucose and haemoglobin also typically become abnormal in the months preceding diagnosis 46. Therefore, cancer decision support tools have been produced from combinations of symptoms and risk factors. In the UK, they have been introduced into general practices in 15 cancer networks to date 8, and their utility is currently being audited 47. Modification to existing tools to enhance their diagnostic accuracy can be expected in the future.

Endoscopy

1. Endoscopic ultrasonography

If there is a mass lesion on cross-sectional imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) provides an alternative method for visualising and sampling the extra-hepatic biliary tree, pancreas, gallbladder or peri-hilar lymph nodes. EUS-FNA has a diagnostic accuracy for PDAC of between 65% and 96% 48, 49. In BTC, a single-centre study reported a sensitivity of 73%, which was significantly better in distal compared with proximal tumours (81% versus 59% respectively, P=0.04) 50. Recently, developed fine core biopsy needles appear to have improved diagnostic accuracy over traditional FNA needles, but randomised trials are awaited 49, 51, 52. Rapid onsite examination by a cytopathologist is used in some centres, particularly in North America, and has been shown to improve the yield of EUS-FNA in individual centres 53, 54 but this trend has not been borne out in recent randomised controlled trials 55.

To improve the diagnostic accuracy of EUS, it can also be combined with novel adjuncts such as contrast agents (SonoVue ®), transient elastography (TE) or confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). TE allows the measurement of the tissue firmness, which tends to be increased in malignant tissue. In a recent single-centre study from the UK, quantitative strain measurements were found to have high sensitivity but low specificity for the detection of PDAC 56. The technology to perform the techniques is available on most modern EUS machines and adds little time to the overall procedure time. The technique can be performed equally well by endosonographers with limited experience 57, 58 and is particularly advantageous in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain after standard EUS has been performed 59. Contrast-enhanced EUS is performed with agents such as SonoVue ® and allows visualisation of the early arterial phase and late parenchymal phase enhancement of the pancreas. Pancreatic tumours are generally hypovascular compared with the surrounding parenchyma 60, 61. Dynamic contrast EUS is a relatively novel method that allows the non-invasive quantification of the tumour perfusion compared with the pancreatic parenchyma by using software that is now built into a number of EUS scanners. The use of this technology is evolving but is expected to be most applicable when predicting tumour response to chemotherapeutic agents, particularly new drugs against vascular angioneogenesis 62, 63.

Recently, a needle-based confocal endomicroscope has also been developed which can be passed through a 19G FNA needle to assess indeterminate masses, cysts or lymph nodes. Malignancy in the hepatobilary tract is identified by the presence of irregular vessels, vascular leakage and large dark clumps ( Figure 1) 64. In a recent study of 25 patients with indeterminate pancreatic masses referred for EUS-FNA, needle-based CLE was shown to be a safe and feasible technique 65.

Figure 1.
Novel diagnostic adjuncts to ERCP and EUS.

2. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

ERCP is typically undertaken when imaging demonstrates an indeterminate biliary stricture and tissue acquisition is required for cytological or histological assessment. Biliary brush cytology and endobiliary biopsy have a sensitivity for malignancy of 9–57% 29, 30, 66, 67. Most HPB tumours exhibit chromosomal aneuploidy 68; therefore, in some centres, fluorescence in situ hybridisation and digital image analysis are used to assess for the presence of DNA abnormalities in brush cytology 30, 69. Although these techniques have been adopted by only a few centres, the presence of polysomy is highly suggestive of BTC 30, 69.

Poor diagnostic accuracy in biliary brush and endobiliary samples has been attributed to their being non-targeted samples obtained with only fluoroscopic guidance 70. The single-operator cholangioscopy system (SpyGlass, Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA, USA) introduced in 2006 and now superseded by the SpyGlass DS system enables intrabiliary biopsies under direct vision via small disposable forceps ( Figure 1). In a recent systematic review, the sensitivity and specificity of cholangioscopy-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures were 60.1% and 98.0%, respectively 71. Higher sensitivities are observed for intrinsic biliary malignancy compared with extrinsic compressing tumours 72. Several techniques have been employed to augment the visualised mucosa during cholangioscopy, including chromendoscopy with methylene blue 7375, narrow-band imaging 76, 77 and autofluorescence 78.

During ERCP, a “CholangioFlex” confocal probe (Mauna Kea Technologies, Paris, France) can be placed down the working channel of a cholangioscope or duodenoscope to obtain real-time CLE images, which are akin to standard histology ( Figure 1). If the images obtained from a point on the biliary mucosa contain dark areas, this is highly suggestive of malignancy 79, 80. The diagnostic accuracy of probe-based CLE was recently validated in a prospective multi-centre international study with 112 patients (71 with malignant lesions). Tissue sampling alone had a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 56%, 100% and 72%, respectively. In comparison, ERCP with probe-based CLE had a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 89%, 71% and 82%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy increased to 88% when probe-based CLE and tissue sampling results were combined 81. CLE is also feasible in the pancreatic duct during pancreaticoscopy but, owing to concerns over pancreatitis, is rarely used. In a case report by Meining et al., the presence of a main duct-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia was confirmed by clear views of typical finger-like projections 82. Intraductal ultrasound in small studies has also been shown to have a diagnostic accuracy of up to 90% 83.

Conclusions

Currently, the most widely used tumour marker in pancreaticobiliary malignancy is CA19-9. However, its use is limited by its elevation in a number of other benign and malignant conditions. Furthermore, it is not produced in approximately 7% of the population who are Lewis antigen–negative and is often undetectable when tumours are small. Over the last few years, a number of very promising biomarker panels have been identified which can detect tumours at an early stage when curative intervention could be possible. These markers are subject to ongoing validation studies but appear likely to be implemented into screening programmes, particularly for high-risk groups, in the near future. Novel endoscopic techniques such as per-oral cholangioscopy and confocal endomicroscopy can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of standard techniques and are increasingly available in large-volume centres worldwide.

Abbreviations

AUC, area under the curve; BTC, biliary tract cancer; CA, carbohydrate antigen; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CLE, confocal laser endomicroscopy; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; HPB, hepato-pancreato-biliary; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; TE, transient elastography.

Notes

[version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Funding Statement

SPP is supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant P01CA8420. Part of the work was undertaken at University College London Hospitals/University College London, which received a portion of funding from the Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Notes

Editorial Note on the Review Process

F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).

The referees who approved this article are:

  • Peter Vilmann, Gastro Unit, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
    No competing interests were disclosed.
  • Pia Helene Klausen, Gastro Unit, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
    No competing interests were disclosed.
  • Vangelis Kalaitzakis, Gastro Unit, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
    No competing interests were disclosed.
  • Pietro Fusaroli, Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Science, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, BO, Italy
    No competing interests were disclosed.

References

1. CRUK: Pancreatic cancer statistics.2013. Reference Source
2. Khan SA, Toledano MB, Taylor-Robinson SD.: Epidemiology, risk factors, and pathogenesis of cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2008;10(2):77–82. 10.1080/13651820801992641 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. CRUK: Cancer Research UK Cancer Stats Incidence 2008.2011. Reference Source
4. Coupland VH, Kocher HM, Berry DP, et al. : Incidence and survival for hepatic, pancreatic and biliary cancers in England between 1998 and 2007. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36(4):e207–14. 10.1016/j.canep.2012.03.010 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al. : SEER Cancer Statistics. Review, 1975–2007. National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010.2010. Reference Source
6. Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, et al., editors. : Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. IARC Scientific Publications No 160,2007;9 Reference Source
7. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. : Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer--analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(2):78–85. 10.1056/NEJM200007133430201 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C.: Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(594):e38–45. 10.3399/bjgp12X616355 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, et al. : The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(12):1940–4. 10.1038/bjc.2012.190 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
10. Silverman DT, Dunn JA, Hoover RN, et al. : Cigarette smoking and pancreas cancer: a case-control study based on direct interviews. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86(20):1510–6. 10.1093/jnci/86.20.1510 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Fuchs CS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, et al. : A prospective study of cigarette smoking and the risk of pancreatic cancer. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(19):2255–60. 10.1001/archinte.1996.00440180119015 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Muscat JE, Stellman SD, Hoffmann D, et al. : Smoking and pancreatic cancer in men and women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6(1):15–9. [PubMed]
13. Bonelli L, Aste H, Bovo P, et al. : Exocrine pancreatic cancer, cigarette smoking, and diabetes mellitus: a case-control study in northern Italy. Pancreas. 2003;27(2):143–9. 10.1097/00006676-200308000-00007 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
14. Larsson SC, Permert J, Håkansson N, et al. : Overall obesity, abdominal adiposity, diabetes and cigarette smoking in relation to the risk of pancreatic cancer in two Swedish population-based cohorts. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(11):1310–5. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602868 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Hassan MM, Bondy ML, Wolff RA, et al. : Risk factors for pancreatic cancer: case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(12):2696–707. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01510.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
16. Gullo L, Tomassetti P, Migliori M, et al. : Do early symptoms of pancreatic cancer exist that can allow an earlier diagnosis? Pancreas. 2001;22(2):210–3. 10.1097/00006676-200103000-00017 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
17. Ferlay JS, Bray F, Forman D, et al. : GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. accessed on 03/08/2013.2008. Reference Source
18. Shaib Y, El-Serag HB.: The epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2004;24(2):115–25. 10.1055/s-2004-828889 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Claessen MM, Vleggaar FP, Tytgat KM, et al. : High lifetime risk of cancer in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2009;50(1):158–64. 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.08.013 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
20. Tyson GL, El-Serag HB.: Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology. 2011;54(1):173–84. 10.1002/hep.24351 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Chapman RW.: Risk factors for biliary tract carcinogenesis. Ann Oncol. 1999;10(Suppl 4):308–11. 10.1093/annonc/10.suppl_4.S308 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. de Groen PC, Gores GJ, LaRusso NF, et al. : Biliary tract cancers. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(18):1368–78. 10.1056/NEJM199910283411807 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
23. Saluja SS, Sharma R, Pal S, et al. : Differentiation between benign and malignant hilar obstructions using laboratory and radiological investigations: a prospective study. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):373–82. 10.1080/13651820701504207 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Fernández-Esparrach G, Ginès A, Sánchez M, et al. : Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1632–9. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01333.x [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Sai JK, Suyama M, Kubokawa Y, et al. : Early detection of extrahepatic bile-duct carcinomas in the nonicteric stage by using MRCP followed by EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70(1):29–36. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.036 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. Lee JY.: [Multidetector-row CT of malignant biliary obstruction]. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2006;48(4):247–55. [PubMed]
27. Kalaitzakis E, Levy M, Kamisawa T, et al. : Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography does not reliably distinguish IgG4-associated cholangitis from primary sclerosing cholangitis or cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(9):800–803.e2. 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.05.019 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
28. De Bellis M, Sherman S, Fogel EL, et al. : Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (Part 1). Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(4):552–61. 10.1016/S0016-5107(02)70442-2 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
29. Harewood GC, Baron TH, Stadheim LM, et al. : Prospective, blinded assessment of factors influencing the accuracy of biliary cytology interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(8):1464–9. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30845.x [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
30. Moreno Luna LE, Kipp B, Halling KC, et al. : Advanced cytologic techniques for the detection of malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(4):1064–72. 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.08.021 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
31. Klein AP, Lindström S, Mendelsohn JB, et al. : An absolute risk model to identify individuals at elevated risk for pancreatic cancer in the general population. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72311. 10.1371/journal.pone.0072311 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
32. Ariyama J, Suyama M, Ogawa K, et al. : [Screening of pancreatic neoplasms and the diagnostic rate of small pancreatic neoplasms]. Nihon Rinsho. 1986;44(8):1729–34. [PubMed]
33. Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J, et al. : ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5313–27. 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2644 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
34. Bonney GK, Craven RA, Prasad R, et al. : Circulating markers of biliary malignancy: opportunities in proteomics? Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(2):149–58. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70027-5 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
35. Hotakainen K, Tanner P, Alfthan H, et al. : Comparison of three immunoassays for CA 19-9. Clin Chim Acta. 2009;400(1–2):123–7. 10.1016/j.cca.2008.10.033 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
36. Abi-Rached B, Neugut AI.: Diagnostic and management issues in gallbladder carcinoma. Oncology (Williston Park). 1995;9(1):19–24; discussion 24, 27, 30. [PubMed]
37. Lazaridis KN, Gores GJ.: Primary sclerosing cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2006;26(1):42–51. 10.1055/s-2006-933562 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
38. Khan SA, Davidson BR, Goldin RD, et al. : Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update. Gut. 2012;61(12):1657–69. 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301748 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
39. Agarwal B, Correa AM, Ho L.: Survival in pancreatic carcinoma based on tumor size. Pancreas. 2008;36(1):e15–20. 10.1097/mpa.0b013e31814de421 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
40. Malgerud L, Lindberg J, Wirta V, et al. : Bioinformatory-assisted analysis of next-generation sequencing data for precision medicine in pancreatic cancer. Mol Oncol. 2017. 10.1002/1878-0261.12108 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
41. Lindahl A, Heuchel R, Forshed J, et al. : Discrimination of pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis by LC-MS metabolomics. Metabolomics. 2017;13(5):61. 10.1007/s11306-017-1199-6 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
42. Metzger J, Negm AA, Plentz RR, et al. : Urine proteomic analysis differentiates cholangiocarcinoma from primary sclerosing cholangitis and other benign biliary disorders. Gut. 2013;62(1):122–30. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302047 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
43. Radon TP, Massat NJ, Jones R, et al. : Identification of a Three-Biomarker Panel in Urine for Early Detection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(15):3512–21. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2467 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
44. Holly EA, Chaliha I, Bracci PM, et al. : Signs and symptoms of pancreatic cancer: a population-based case-control study in the San Francisco Bay area. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(6):510–7. 10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00171-5 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
45. Keane MG, Bramis K, Pereira SP, et al. : Systematic review of novel ablative methods in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(9):2267–78. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2267 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
46. Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, et al. : A case-control study comparing the incidence of early symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e005720. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005720 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
47. Macmillan: Early diagnosis programme.2014; (accessed 15th May 2014). Reference Source
48. Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A, et al. : Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2011;43(10):897–912. 10.1055/s-0030-1256754 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
49. Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P, et al. : EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV - EUS-guided interventions: General Aspects and EUS-guided Sampling (Short Version). Ultraschall Med. 2016;37(2):157–69. 10.1055/s-0035-1553788 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
50. Mohamadnejad M, DeWitt JM, Sherman S, et al. : Role of EUS for preoperative evaluation of cholangiocarcinoma: a large single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(1):71–8. 10.1016/j.gie.2010.08.050 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
51. Fuccio L, Hassan C, Laterza L, et al. : 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. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(4):596–608. 10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.162 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
52. Wang J, Wu X, Yin P, et al. : Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:198. 10.1186/s13063-016-1316-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
53. Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, et al. : Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(6):1289–94. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07472.x [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
54. van Riet PA, Cahen DL, Poley JW, et al. : Mapping international practice patterns in EUS-guided tissue sampling: outcome of a global survey. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4(3):E360–70. 10.1055/s-0042-101023 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
55. Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS, et al. : The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(10):1429–39. 10.1038/ajg.2015.262 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
56. Dawwas MF, Taha H, Leeds JS, et al. : Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, single-center study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(5):953–61. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.034 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
57. Soares JB, Iglesias-Garcia J, Goncalves B, et al. : Interobserver agreement of EUS elastography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2015;4(3):244–9. 10.4103/2303-9027.163016 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
58. Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Mancino MG, et al. : Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(6):1063–9. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07115.x [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
59. Iglesias-Garcia J, Lindkvist B, Lariño-Noia J, et al. : Differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH-EUS), quantitative-elastography (QE-EUS), or both? United European Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(2):236–46. 10.1177/2050640616640635 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
60. Dietrich CF.: Contrast-enhanced low mechanical index endoscopic ultrasound (CELMI-EUS). Endoscopy. 2009;41(Suppl 2):E43–4. 10.1055/s-0028-1119491 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
61. Dietrich CF, Braden B, Hocke M, et al. : Improved characterisation of solitary solid pancreatic tumours using contrast enhanced transabdominal ultrasound. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134(6):635–43. 10.1007/s00432-007-0326-6 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
62. Dietrich CF, Dong Y, Froehlich E, et al. : Dynamic contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound: A quantification method. Endosc Ultrasound. 2017;6(1):12–20. 10.4103/2303-9027.193595 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
63. Fusaroli P, Kypreos D, Alma Petrini CA, et al. : Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: changing trends in the third millennium. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45(5):400–4. 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181fbde42 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
64. Giovannini M, Thomas B, Erwan B, et al. : Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(13):1587–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Karstensen J, Cartana T, Pia K, et al. : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle confocal laser endomicroscopy in pancreatic masses. Endosc Ultrasound. 2014;3(Suppl 1):S2–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. de Bellis M, Sherman S, Fogel EL, et al. : Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (Part 2). Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(5):720–30. [PubMed]
67. Baron TH, Harewood GC, Rumalla A, et al. : A prospective comparison of digital image analysis and routine cytology for the identification of malignancy in biliary tract strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(3):214–9. 10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00006-0 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
68. Bergquist A, Tribukait B, Glaumann H, et al. : Can DNA cytometry be used for evaluation of malignancy and premalignancy in bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis? J Hepatol. 2000;33(6):873–7. 10.1016/S0168-8278(00)80117-8 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
69. Bangarulingam SY, Bjornsson E, Enders F, et al. : Long-term outcomes of positive fluorescence in situ hybridization tests in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 2010;51(1):174–80. 10.1002/hep.23277 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
70. Tischendorf JJ, Krüger M, Trautwein C, et al. : Cholangioscopic characterization of dominant bile duct stenoses in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopy. 2006;38(7):665–9. 10.1055/s-2006-925257 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
71. Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Lourdusamy V, et al. : Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(4):608–14.e2. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.030 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
72. Chen YK, Parsi MA, Binmoeller KF, et al. : Single-operator cholangioscopy in patients requiring evaluation of bile duct disease or therapy of biliary stones (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(4):805–14. 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.016 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
73. Larghi A, Waxman I.: Endoscopic direct cholangioscopy by using an ultra-slim upper endoscope: a feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(6):853–7. 10.1016/j.gie.2005.07.050 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
74. Hoffman A, Kiesslich R, Bittinger F, et al. : Methylene blue-aided cholangioscopy in patients with biliary strictures: feasibility and outcome analysis. Endoscopy. 2008;40(7):563–71. 10.1055/s-2007-995688 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
75. Hoffman A, Kiesslich R, Moench C, et al. : Methylene blue-aided cholangioscopy unravels the endoscopic features of ischemic-type biliary lesions after liver transplantation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66(5):1052–8. 10.1016/j.gie.2007.04.022 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
76. Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, et al. : Peroral cholangioscopic diagnosis of biliary-tract diseases by using narrow-band imaging (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66(4):730–6. 10.1016/j.gie.2007.02.056 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
77. Lu X, Itoi T, Kubota K.: Cholangioscopy by using narrow-band imaging and transpapillary radiotherapy for mucin-producing bile duct tumor. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(6):e34–5. 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.11.001 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
78. Itoi T, Neuhaus H, Chen YK.: Diagnostic value of image-enhanced video cholangiopancreatoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2009;19(4):557–66. 10.1016/j.giec.2009.06.002 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
79. Meining A, Frimberger E, Becker V, et al. : Detection of cholangiocarcinoma in vivo using miniprobe-based confocal fluorescence microscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(9):1057–60. 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.04.014 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
80. Giovannini M, Bories E, Monges G, et al. : Results of a phase I-II study on intraductal confocal microscopy (IDCM) in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stenosis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(7):2247–53. 10.1007/s00464-010-1542-8 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
81. Slivka A, Gan I, Jamidar P, et al. : Validation of the diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the characterization of indeterminate biliary strictures: results of a prospective multicenter international study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(2):282–90. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.009 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
82. Meining A, Phillip V, Gaa J, et al. : Pancreaticoscopy with miniprobe-based confocal laser-scanning microscopy of an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(6):1178–80. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.06.013 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
83. Menzel J, Poremba C, Dietl KH, et al. : Preoperative diagnosis of bile duct strictures--comparison of intraductal ultrasonography with conventional endosonography. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000;35(1):77–82. 10.1080/003655200750024579 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
84. Han Y, Zhang W, Liu Y.: Identification of hepatoma-derived growth factor as a potential prognostic and diagnostic marker for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2013;37(10):2419–27. 10.1007/s00268-013-2132-4 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
85. Ruzzenente A, Iacono C, Conci S, et al. : A novel serum marker for biliary tract cancer: diagnostic and prognostic values of quantitative evaluation of serum mucin 5AC (MUC5AC). Surgery. 2014;155(4):633–9. 10.1016/j.surg.2013.12.003 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
86. Voigtländer T, David S, Thamm K, et al. : Angiopoietin-2 and biliary diseases: elevated serum, but not bile levels are associated with cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97046. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097046 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
87. Lumachi F, Lo Re G, Tozzoli R, et al. : Measurement of serum carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, cytokeratin-19 fragment and matrix metalloproteinase-7 for detecting cholangiocarcinoma: a preliminary case-control study. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(11):6663–7. [PubMed]
88. Wang YF, Feng FL, Zhao XH, et al. : Combined detection tumor markers for diagnosis and prognosis of gallbladder cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(14):4085–92. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.4085 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
89. Liu MC, Jiang L, Hong HJ, et al. : Serum vascular endothelial growth factors C and D as forecast tools for patients with gallbladder carcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(8):6305–12. 10.1007/s13277-015-3316-3 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
90. Huang L, Chen W, Liang P, et al. : Serum CYFRA 21-1 in Biliary Tract Cancers: A Reliable Biomarker for Gallbladder Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(5):1273–83. 10.1007/s10620-014-3472-0 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
91. Nigam J, Chandra A, Kazmi HR, et al. : Expression of serum survivin protein in diagnosis and prognosis of gallbladder cancer: a comparative study. Med Oncol. 2014;31(9):167. 10.1007/s12032-014-0167-5 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
92. Rucksaken R, Pairojkul C, Pinlaor P, et al. : Plasma autoantibodies against heat shock protein 70, enolase 1 and ribonuclease/angiogenin inhibitor 1 as potential biomarkers for cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103259. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103259 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
93. Ince AT, Yildiz K, Baysal B, et al. : Roles of serum and biliary CEA, CA19-9, VEGFR3, and TAC in differentiating between malignant and benign biliary obstructions. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2014;25(2):162–9. 10.5152/tjg.2014.6056 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
94. Rucksaken R, Charoensuk L, Pinlaor P, et al. : Plasma orosomucoid 2 as a potential risk marker of cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Biomark. 2017;18(1):27–34. 10.3233/CBM-160670 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
95. Rose JB, Correa-Gallego C, Li Y, et al. : The Role of Biliary Carcinoembryonic Antigen-Related Cellular Adhesion Molecule 6 (CEACAM6) as a Biomarker in Cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150195. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150195 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
96. Jiao X, Mo Y, Wu Y, et al. : Upregulated plasma and urinary levels of nucleosides as biological markers in the diagnosis of primary gallbladder cancer. J Sep Sci. 2014;37(21):3033–44. 10.1002/jssc.201400638 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
97. Sogawa K, Takano S, Iida F, et al. : Identification of a novel serum biomarker for pancreatic cancer, C4b-binding protein α-chain (C4BPA) by quantitative proteomic analysis using tandem mass tags. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(8):949–56. 10.1038/bjc.2016.295 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
98. Rychlíková J, Vecka M, Jáchymová M.: Osteopontin as a discriminating marker for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. Cancer Biomark. 2016;17(1):55–65. 10.3233/CBM-160617 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
99. Lin C, Wu WC, Zhao GC, et al. : ITRAQ-based quantitative proteomics reveals apolipoprotein A-I and transferrin as potential serum markers in CA19-9 negative pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(31):e4527. 10.1097/MD.0000000000004527 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
100. Guo X, Lv X, Fang C, et al. : Dysbindin as a novel biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma identified by proteomic profiling. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(8):1821–9. 10.1002/ijc.30227 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
101. Han SX, Zhou X, Sui X, et al. : Serum dickkopf-1 is a novel serological biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6(23):19907–17. 10.18632/oncotarget.4529 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
102. Qu D, Johnson J, Chandrakesan P, et al. : Doublecortin-like kinase 1 is elevated serologically in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and widely expressed on circulating tumor cells. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118933. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118933 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
103. Dong H, Qian D, Wang Y, et al. : Survivin expression and serum levels in pancreatic cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:189. 10.1186/s12957-015-0605-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
104. Gebauer F, Struck L, Tachezy M, et al. : Serum EpCAM expression in pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(9):4741–6. [PubMed]
105. Wang X, Li Y, Tian H, et al. : Macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (MIC-1/GDF15) as a novel diagnostic serum biomarker in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:578. 10.1186/1471-2407-14-578 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
106. Kendrick ZW, Firpo MA, Repko RC, et al. : Serum IGFBP2 and MSLN as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(7):670–6. 10.1111/hpb.12199 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
107. Kang CY, Wang J, Axell-House D, et al. : Clinical significance of serum COL6A3 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(1):7–15. 10.1007/s11605-013-2326-y [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
108. Willumsen N, Bager CL, Leeming DJ, et al. : Extracellular matrix specific protein fingerprints measured in serum can separate pancreatic cancer patients from healthy controls. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:554. 10.1186/1471-2407-13-554 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
109. Falco A, Rosati A, Festa M, et al. : BAG3 is a novel serum biomarker for pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(7):1178–80. 10.1038/ajg.2013.128 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
110. Chen J, Chen LJ, Xia YL, et al. : Identification and verification of transthyretin as a potential biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139(7):1117–27. 10.1007/s00432-013-1422-4 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
111. Gold DV, Gaedcke J, Ghadimi BM, et al. : PAM4 enzyme immunoassay alone and in combination with CA 19-9 for the detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2013;119(3):522–8. 10.1002/cncr.27762 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
112. Poruk KE, Firpo MA, Scaife CL, et al. : Serum osteopontin and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2013;42(2):193–7. 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31825e354d [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
113. Lee MJ, Na K, Jeong SK, et al. : Identification of human complement factor B as a novel biomarker candidate for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Proteome Res. 2014;13(11):4878–88. 10.1021/pr5002719 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
114. Abdel-Razik A, ElMahdy Y, Hanafy EE, et al. : Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Malignant and Benign Biliary Obstructions. Am J Med Sci. 2016;351(3):259–64. 10.1016/j.amjms.2015.12.013 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
115. Makawita S, Dimitromanolakis A, Soosaipillai A, et al. : Validation of four candidate pancreatic cancer serological biomarkers that improve the performance of CA19.9. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:404. 10.1186/1471-2407-13-404 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
116. Shaw VE, Lane B, Jenkinson C, et al. : Serum cytokine biomarker panels for discriminating pancreatic cancer from benign pancreatic disease. Mol Cancer. 2014;13:114. 10.1186/1476-4598-13-114 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
117. Brand RE, Nolen BM, Zeh HJ, et al. : Serum biomarker panels for the detection of pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(4):805–16. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0248 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
118. Capello M, Bantis LE, Scelo G, et al. : Sequential Validation of Blood-Based Protein Biomarker Candidates for Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(4):djw266. 10.1093/jnci/djw266 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
119. Chan A, Prassas I, Dimitromanolakis A, et al. : Validation of biomarkers that complement CA19.9 in detecting early pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(22):5787–95. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0289 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
120. Ankeny JS, Court CM, Hou S, et al. : Circulating tumour cells as a biomarker for diagnosis and staging in pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(12):1367–75. 10.1038/bjc.2016.121 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
121. Kulemann B, Liss AS, Warshaw AL, et al. : KRAS mutations in pancreatic circulating tumor cells: a pilot study. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(6):7547–54. 10.1007/s13277-015-4589-2 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
122. Singh N, Gupta S, Pandey RM, et al. : High levels of cell-free circulating nucleic acids in pancreatic cancer are associated with vascular encasement, metastasis and poor survival. Cancer Invest. 2015;33(3):78–85. 10.3109/07357907.2014.1001894 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
123. Kinugasa H, Nouso K, Miyahara K, et al. : Detection of K-ras gene mutation by liquid biopsy in patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(13):2271–80. 10.1002/cncr.29364 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
124. Takai E, Totoki Y, Nakamura H, et al. : Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA for molecular assessment in pancreatic cancer. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 18425. 10.1038/srep18425 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
125. Sausen M, Phallen J, Adleff V, et al. : Clinical implications of genomic alterations in the tumour and circulation of pancreatic cancer patients. Nat Commun. 2015;6: 7686. 10.1038/ncomms8686 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
126. Kulemann B, Pitman MB, Liss AS, et al. : Circulating tumor cells found in patients with localized and advanced pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):547–50. 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000324 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
127. Zhang Y, Wang F, Ning N, et al. : Patterns of circulating tumor cells identified by CEP8, CK and CD45 in pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):1228–33. 10.1002/ijc.29070 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
128. Wu J, Zhou Y, Zhang Y, et al. : Co-amplification at lower denaturation-temperature PCR combined with unlabled-probe high-resolution melting to detect KRAS codon 12 and 13 mutations in plasma-circulating DNA of pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(24):10647–52. 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.24.10647 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
129. Bidard FC, Huguet F, Louvet C, et al. : Circulating tumor cells in locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the ancillary CirCe 07 study to the LAP 07 trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(8):2057–61. 10.1093/annonc/mdt176 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
130. Bobek V, Gurlich R, Eliasova P, et al. : Circulating tumor cells in pancreatic cancer patients: enrichment and cultivation. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(45):17163–70. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.17163 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
131. Rhim AD, Thege FI, Santana SM, et al. : Detection of circulating pancreas epithelial cells in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(3):647–51. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.12.007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
132. Iwanicki-Caron I, Basile P, Toure E, et al. : Usefulness of circulating tumor cell detection in pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(1):152–5. 10.1038/ajg.2012.367 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
133. Sheng W, Ogunwobi OO, Chen T, et al. : Capture, release and culture of circulating tumor cells from pancreatic cancer patients using an enhanced mixing chip. Lab Chip. 2014;14(1):89–98. 10.1039/c3lc51017d [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
134. Catenacci DV, Chapman CG, Xu P, et al. : Acquisition of Portal Venous Circulating Tumor Cells From Patients With Pancreaticobiliary Cancers by Endoscopic Ultrasound. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1794–1803.e4. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.08.050 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
135. Earl J, Garcia-Nieto S, Martinez-Avila JC, et al. : Circulating tumor cells (Ctc) and kras mutant circulating free Dna (cfdna) detection in peripheral blood as biomarkers in patients diagnosed with exocrine pancreatic cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:797. 10.1186/s12885-015-1779-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
136. Cauley CE, Pitman MB, Zhou J, et al. : Circulating Epithelial Cells in Patients with Pancreatic Lesions: Clinical and Pathologic Findings. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(3):699–707. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.05.014 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
137. Kamande JW, Hupert ML, Witek MA, et al. : Modular microsystem for the isolation, enumeration, and phenotyping of circulating tumor cells in patients with pancreatic cancer. Anal Chem. 2013;85(19):9092–100. 10.1021/ac401720k [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
138. Takai E, Totoki Y, Nakamura H, et al. : Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA for Molecular Assessment and Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;924:13–7. 10.1007/978-3-319-42044-8_3 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
139. Hadano N, Murakami Y, Uemura K, et al. : Prognostic value of circulating tumour DNA in patients undergoing curative resection for pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(1):59–65. 10.1038/bjc.2016.175 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
140. Zill OA, Greene C, Sebisanovic D, et al. : Cell-Free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing in Pancreatobiliary Carcinomas. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(10):1040–8. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0274 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
141. Kishimoto T, Eguchi H, Nagano H, et al. : Plasma miR-21 is a novel diagnostic biomarker for biliary tract cancer. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(12):1626–31. 10.1111/cas.12300 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
142. Wang WS, Liu LX, Li GP, et al. : Combined serum CA19-9 and miR-27a-3p in peripheral blood mononuclear cells to diagnose pancreatic cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013;6(4):331–8. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-12-0307 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
143. Kawaguchi T, Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, et al. : Clinical impact of circulating miR-221 in plasma of patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(2):361–9. 10.1038/bjc.2012.546 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
144. Zhao C, Zhang J, Zhang S, et al. : Diagnostic and biological significance of microRNA-192 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2013;30(1):276–84. 10.3892/or.2013.2420 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
145. Carlsen AL, Joergensen MT, Knudsen S, et al. : Cell-free plasma microRNA in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and disease controls. Pancreas. 2013;42(7):1107–13. 10.1097/MPA.0b013e318296bb34 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
146. Que R, Ding G, Chen J, et al. : Analysis of serum exosomal microRNAs and clinicopathologic features of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:219. 10.1186/1477-7819-11-219 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
147. Schultz NA, Dehlendorff C, Jensen BV, et al. : MicroRNA biomarkers in whole blood for detection of pancreatic cancer. JAMA. 2014;311(4):392–404. 10.1001/jama.2013.284664 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
148. Silakit R, Loilome W, Yongvanit P, et al. : Circulating miR-192 in liver fluke-associated cholangiocarcinoma patients: a prospective prognostic indicator. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(12):864–72. 10.1002/jhbp.145 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
149. Lin M, Chen W, Huang J, et al. : Aberrant expression of microRNAs in serum may identify individuals with pancreatic cancer. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(12):5226–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
150. Chen Q, Yang L, Xiao Y, et al. : Circulating microRNA-182 in plasma and its potential diagnostic and prognostic value for pancreatic cancer. Med Oncol. 2014;31(11):225. 10.1007/s12032-014-0225-z [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
151. Wang S, Yin J, Li T, et al. : Upregulated circulating miR-150 is associated with the risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2015;33(2):819–25. 10.3892/or.2014.3641 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
152. Ganepola GA, Rutledge JR, Suman P, et al. : Novel blood-based microRNA biomarker panel for early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;6(1):22–33. 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i1.22 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
153. Voigtländer T, Gupta SK, Thum S, et al. : MicroRNAs in Serum and Bile of Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and/or Cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139305. 10.1371/journal.pone.0139305 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
154. Abue M, Yokoyama M, Shibuya R, et al. : Circulating miR-483-3p and miR-21 is highly expressed in plasma of pancreatic cancer. Int J Oncol. 2015;46(2):539–47. 10.3892/ijo.2014.2743 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
155. Slater EP, Strauch K, Rospleszcz S, et al. : MicroRNA-196a and -196b as Potential Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Familial Pancreatic Cancer. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(4):464–71. 10.1016/j.tranon.2014.05.007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
156. Kojima M, Sudo H, Kawauchi J, et al. : MicroRNA markers for the diagnosis of pancreatic and biliary-tract cancers. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118220. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118220 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
157. Xu J, Cao Z, Liu W, et al. : Plasma miRNAs Effectively Distinguish Patients With Pancreatic Cancer From Controls: A Multicenter Study. Ann Surg. 2016;263(6):1173–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001345 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
158. Madhavan B, Yue S, Galli U, et al. : Combined evaluation of a panel of protein and miRNA serum-exosome biomarkers for pancreatic cancer diagnosis increases sensitivity and specificity. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(11):2616–27. 10.1002/ijc.29324 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
159. Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, Miyamae M, et al. : Malignant potential in pancreatic neoplasm; new insights provided by circulating miR-223 in plasma. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015;15(6):773–85. 10.1517/14712598.2015.1029914 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
160. Alemar B, Izetti P, Gregório C, et al. : miRNA-21 and miRNA-34a Are Potential Minimally Invasive Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2016;45(1):84–92. 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000383 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
161. Wu X, Xia M, Chen D, et al. : Profiling of downregulated blood-circulating miR-150-5p as a novel tumor marker for cholangiocarcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(11):15019–29. 10.1007/s13277-016-5313-6 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
162. Bernuzzi F, Marabita F, Lleo A, et al. : Serum microRNAs as novel biomarkers for primary sclerosing cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Exp Immunol. 2016;185(1):61–71. 10.1111/cei.12776 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
163. Kim TH, Chang JH, Lee HJ, et al. : mRNA expression of CDH3, IGF2BP3, and BIRC5 in biliary brush cytology specimens is a useful adjunctive tool of cytology for the diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(27):e4132. 10.1097/MD.0000000000004132 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
164. Duell EJ, Lujan-Barroso L, Sala N, et al. : Plasma microRNAs as biomarkers of pancreatic cancer risk in a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(5):905–15. 10.1002/ijc.30790 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
165. Branchi V, Schaefer P, Semaan A, et al. : Promoter hypermethylation of SHOX2 and SEPT9 is a potential biomarker for minimally invasive diagnosis in adenocarcinomas of the biliary tract. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8:133. 10.1186/s13148-016-0299-x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] F1000 Recommendation
166. Dhar DK, Olde Damink SW, Brindley JH, et al. : Pyruvate kinase M2 is a novel diagnostic marker and predicts tumor progression in human biliary tract cancer. Cancer. 2013;119(3):575–85. 10.1002/cncr.27611 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
167. Navaneethan U, Lourdusamy V, Poptic E, et al. : Comparative effectiveness of pyruvate kinase M2 in bile, serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and biliary brushings in diagnosing malignant biliary strictures. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(4):903–9. 10.1007/s10620-014-3397-7 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
168. Keane MG, Huggett MT, Chapman MH, et al. : Diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancy by detection of minichromosome maintenance protein 5 in biliary brush cytology. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(3):349–55. 10.1038/bjc.2016.447 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
169. Danese E, Ruzzenente O, Ruzzenente A, et al. : Assessment of bile and serum mucin5AC in cholangiocarcinoma: diagnostic performance and biologic significance. Surgery. 2014;156(5):1218–24. 10.1016/j.surg.2014.05.006 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
170. Farina A, Dumonceau JM, Antinori P, et al. : Bile carcinoembryonic cell adhesion molecule 6 (CEAM6) as a biomarker of malignant biliary stenoses. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1844(5):1018–25. 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.06.010 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
171. Budzynska A, Nowakowska-Dulawa E, Marek T, et al. : Differentiation of pancreatobiliary cancer from benign biliary strictures using neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2013;64(1):109–14. [PubMed]
172. Roy R, Zurakowski D, Wischhusen J, et al. : Urinary TIMP-1 and MMP-2 levels detect the presence of pancreatic malignancies. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(9):1772–9. 10.1038/bjc.2014.462 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd