ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)1999
Tumour cell detection in G-CSF mobilised stem cell harvests of patients with breast cancer.
Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of stem cells in cancer therapy and cancer stem cells: a review.Cancer cell international · 2007Article
- Micrometastases in apheresis products predict shorter progression-free and overall survival in patients with breast cancer undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT).Bone marrow transplantation · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral blood stem cells were mobilised with G-CSF from steady-state haemopoiesis after previous anthracyclin-containing standard dose chemotherapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer. 48 samples were obtained from patients with stage II-III breast cancer and > or = 10 lymph nodes, 15 samples from patients with chemotherapy sensitive metastatic disease, and 13 samples from women with inflammatory breast cancer. 44 samples were first or single leukaphereses and 32 samples were second or third harvests. Aliquots were searched for contaminating tumour cells by immunocytochemistry (IC) and cytokeratin-19 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction rtPCR). The median count of MNCs examined by IC was 2 x 10(6); cDNA prepared from 2 x 10(7) cells was subjected to PCR. Fifty-nine samples were examined by immunocytochemistry, 36 samples by rtPCR, and 19 samples by both techniques. Samples investigated by IC and rtPCR were judged as positive if there was at least one positive test. On the whole, 42/79 (55.3%) of the samples were positive with an insignificant trend to a higher positivity rate in second or subsequent leukaphereses (52.3% vs 59.3%). The median tumour cell load per 10(6) MNCs was low with 0.5 (0-7) cells in all, and a total of 2.2 (0.5-7) cells in positive specimen. Differences in the cancer cell load of first and subsequent leukaphereses and between subgroups of patients were not found. PCR and IC gave consistent results in 63.2%. This phenomenon can be explained by the greater sensitivity of the molecular method and by a Poisson distribution of coharvested tumour cells in samples. Tumour cell contamination in G-CSF mobilised stem cells from patients with breast cancer from steady state haemopoiesis after preceding anthacyclin-containing chemotherapy is frequent, but the tumour cell load is low. To allow a comparison of different studies dealing with cancer cell contamination in stem cells, standardisation of assays is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10382938What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.