ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2000
Investigation of genetic alterations associated with development and adverse outcome in patients with astrocytic tumor.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cytogenetic characterizations of central nervous system tumors: the first comprehensive report from a single institution in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2009Article
- Prevalence of copy-number neutral LOH in glioblastomas revealed by genomewide analysis of laser-microdissected tissues.Neuro-oncology · 2008Article
- Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of astrocytomas: prognostic and diagnostic implications.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2004Article
- Proliferation and aneusomy predict survival of young patients with astrocytoma grade II.British journal of cancer · 2003Article
- Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in diagnostic and investigative neuropathology.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2002Review
- High expression of Aurora-B/Aurora and Ipll-like midbody-associated protein (AIM-1) in astrocytomas.Journal of neuro-oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Models describing progression in the genetic derangement of glial tumors have shown chromosomal loss and gain occurring most frequently in high-grade lesions, suggesting that identification of these aberrations may be prognostically significant. In this study, Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been used to determine, and to confirm, loss and gain of chromosomes 1, 8, 10, 12 and 17, in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded brain biopsy tissue taken from 60 brain gliomas submitted to surgical resection or stereotactic biopsy. FISH analysis may be a valuable adjunct to histological grading. The results showed that this molecular cytogenetic technique is an important clinical and experimental tool that provides new insight on genetic alterations, confirming gain and loss of genetic material that occurs at the initiation and progression of human glioma. Our data suggests that potentially useful prognostic information may be obtained through this approach. Monosomy 10 was the most statistically significant negative predictor of patient survival, showing a significant correlation with the histological grading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11083072What 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.