ReviewMolecular pathology : MP2002
Methods of molecular analysis: mutation detection in solid tumours.
Review in Molecular pathology : MP, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Landscape of BRCA Mutations among Egyptian Women with Breast Cancer.Oncology and therapy · 2023Review
- What's Wrong in a Jump? Prediction and Validation of Splice Site Variants.Methods and protocols · 2021Review
- Detection of rare point mutation via allele-specific amplification in emulsion PCR.BMB reports · 2013Article
- Molecular prescreening to select patient population in early clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2012Review
- EGFR tyrosine kinase mutation testing in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2012Article
- KRAS mutation testing in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR therapies.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2010Article
- KRAS mutation: comparison of testing methods and tissue sampling techniques in colon cancer.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2010Article
- Targeted KRAS mutation assessment on patient tumor histologic material in real time diagnostics.PloS one · 2009Article
- Intraspecies genotype variability of the microsporidian parasite Encephalitozoon hellem.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Krüppel cripples prostate cancer: KLF6 progress and prospects.The American journal of pathology · 2003Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most mutation detection techniques are unsuitable for routine use on solid tumours. Important parameters include sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, use of existing resources, and cost. In the UK, < 0.2% of service genetics laboratory activity involves mutation analysis in tumours (usually for family studies), mainly because it is time consuming/labour intensive (thus expensive) and DNA extracted from formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue is of low quality and yield. The small size of DNA fragments obtained from tissue blocks limits the polymerase chain reaction, the basis of most mutation detection methods. Other, biological, factors include: (1) heterogeneity of mutations within and between tumours, (2) variation in type and site of mutations in any one gene, (3) normal tissue harbouring mutations, (4) few genes are mutated in most of any one tumour type, and (5) few clinically useful correlations with genetic changes have been found. Present research is centred on correlating single gene mutations with various clinicopathological features, but the pattern of mutations in a combination of genes will probably prove more useful. Microsatellite instability, however, appears to be worth testing for in both familial and sporadic tumours, particularly of the colorectum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.