Table 1.

Overview of studies investigating the diagnostic utility of KRAS and GNAS in branch duct IPMN.

Author	Molecular Marker(s)	Key Findings	Diagnostic Parameters	Conclusions
Ren (2021) [15]	BRAF, KRAS, GNAS	In 60% of KRAS-/GNAS+ branch duct IPMNs, alternate BRAF mutations were present	BRAF variant allele frequencies: 15.7–46.9% GNAS variant allele frequencies: 21.3–50.5%	Somatic BRAF mutations are indicated in the carcinogenesis of KRAS negative branch duct IPMNs
Singhi (2018) [16]	KRAS, GNAS, CEA	Next generation sequencing detected KRAS/GNAS mutations in 100% of branch duct IPMNs	KRAS and/or GNAS detection was 100% sensitive and 96% specific for branch duct IPMN	KRAS and/or GNAS mutations are highly sensitive and specific for branch duct IPMN identification
Singhi (2014) [25]	KRAS, GNAS	GNAS/KRAS mutations aid in mucinous differentiation and identification of branch duct IPMNs	Branch duct IPMN identification: Sensitivity 84% and Specificity 98% Mucinous differentiation: Sensitivity 65% and Specificity 100%	Multi-gene analysis of GNAS and KRAS was highly sensitive and specific for branch duct IPMN identification
Singhi (2016) [26]	KRAS, GNAS	KRAS and/or GNAS were identified in all 23 IPMNs	The sensitivity and specificity of KRAS and/or GNAS for IPMN reached 100%	KRAS and GNAS mutational analysis is very sensitive and specific for branch duct IPMN diagnosis
Kadayifci (2017) [27]	KRAS, GNAS, CEA	GNAS/KRAS mutations are specific for branch duct IPMNs but have low diagnostic accuracy however diagnostic accuracy improved when both are used in conjunction with CEA	Diagnostic accuracy (%): KRAS 76.6 GNAS 70 KRAS/GNAS 80.7 KRAS/GNAS/CEA 86	KRAS and GNAS mutations along with elevated CEA is accurate for branch duct IPMN diagnosis