Patients with pancreatic and biliary carcinomas lack personalized treatment options, in part because biopsies are often inadequate for molecular characterization. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing may enable a precision oncology approach in this setting. We attempted to prospectively analyze 54 genes in tumor and cfDNA for 26 patients. Tumor sequencing failed in nine patients (35%). In the remaining 17, 90.3% (95% CI: 73.1-97.5%) of mutations detected in tumor biopsies were also detected in cfDNA. The diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA sequencing was 97.7%, with 92.3% average sensitivity and 100% specificity across five informative genes. Changes in cfDNA correlated well with tumor marker dynamics in serial sampling (r=0.93). We demonstrate that cfDNA sequencing is feasible, accurate, and sensitive in identifying tumor-derived mutations without prior knowledge of tumor genotype or the abundance of circulating tumor DNA. cfDNA sequencing should be considered in pancreatobiliary cancer trials where tissue sampling is unsafe, infeasible, or otherwise unsuccessful.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2026.
All research outputs
#2,858,158
of 33,005,570 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Discovery
#1,234
of 4,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,676
of 304,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Discovery
#9
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,005,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
