0398). Table 2 Correlation between gene expression and GEM efficacy in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving GEM monotherapy.     GEM efficacy   Gene Expression* Selleck C646   Effective§ Non-effective P ¶-value hENT1 High 4 9 >0.9999   Low 8 14   hENT2 High 6 9 0.5374   Low 6 14   dCK High 8 7 0.0398   Low 4 16   DCD High 3 9 0.4765   Low 9 14   CDA High 4 9 >0.9999   Low 8 14   5′-NT High 4 12 0.2882   Low 8 11   RRM1 High 4 8 >0.9999   Low 8 15   RRM2 High 4 8 >0.9999   Low 8 15   GEM, gemcitabine *Gene expression was determined as high or low based on mean values of 35 EUS-FNA samples. §Effective, partial AZD4547 mw response by imaging study

or stable disease by imaging study with 50% or more decrease in tumor markers compared to pretreatment value ¶ P, examined by chi-squared test (Fisher’s exact test) Discussion EUS-FNA is widely used as a cytological and histological diagnostic method for pancreatic cancer [8, 11].

However, there have been few reports on gene analysis of pancreatic cancer using EUS-FNA samples [7, 8, 12]. In contrast, a number of Caspase phosphorylation studies have demonstrated the feasibility of DNA microarray analysis using samples obtained by FNA in other malignancies, such as breast cancer and lung cancer [13–15]. At least 10 μg of total RNA is required for DNA microarray analysis [10]. Due to the low volume of biopsy specimens obtained by EUS-FNA, it is typically impossible to perform DNA microarray analysis using the raw RNA extracted from these samples. However, a high-fidelity RNA amplification protocol has recently been established [10, 16] that allows analysis of gene expression profiles using small volumes RNA, such as those obtained by EUS-FNA. In our series, only 0.1 – 3.0 μg of total RNA was extracted from EUS-FNA biopsy samples. The objective response rate of GEM monotherapy for pancreatic cancer has been reported to be 5–12% [1, 17, 18]. In this study, PR was observed in 5 of 35 (14%) patients treated with GEM monotherapy, which corresponds

with the response rates reported previously. The number of patients in the GEM-effective group was too www.selleck.co.jp/products/PD-0332991.html small to evaluate for correlations between GEM efficacy and mRNA expression. Therefore, SD patients with a 50% or more decrease in abnormal serum levels of tumor markers compared to baseline were included in the GEM-effective group. CA 19-9 has been shown to be correlated with clinical efficacy of GEM in pancreatic cancer [19]. In this study, the GEM-effective group had a significantly better prognosis than the non-effective group, indicating that the grouping based on GEM efficacy was appropriate. GEM is transported into the cell largely via hENT1 and partly via hENT2 [4].