ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2003
Comparative genomic hybridisation as a supportive tool in diagnostic pathology.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgery in oligometastatic NSCLC patients in the targeted therapy era.Lung cancer management · 2016Review
- A metastasis or a second independent cancer? Evaluating the clonal origin of tumors using array copy number data.Statistics in medicine · 2010Article
- Testing clonal relatedness of tumors using array comparative genomic hybridization: a statistical challenge.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2010Article
- Comprehensive histologic assessment helps to differentiate multiple lung primary nonsmall cell carcinomas from metastases.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2009Article
- Genomic and mutational profiling to assess clonal relationships between multiple non-small cell lung cancers.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPatients with multiple tumour localisations pose a particular problem to the pathologist when the traditional combination of clinical data, morphology, and immunohistochemistry does not provide conclusive evidence to differentiate between metastasis or second primary, or does not identify the primary location in cases of metastases and two primary tumours. Because this is crucial to decide on further treatment, molecular techniques are increasingly being used as ancillary tools.
methodsThe value of comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) to differentiate between metastasis and second primary, or to identify the primary location in cases of metastases and two primary tumours was studied in seven patients. CGH is a cytogenetic technique that allows the analysis of genome wide amplifications, gains, and losses (deletions) in a tumour within a single experiment. The patterns of these chromosomal aberrations at the different tumour localisations were compared.
resultsIn all seven cases, CGH patterns of gains and losses supported the differentiation between metastasis and second primary, or the identification of the primary location in cases of metastases and two primary tumours.
conclusionThe results illustrate the diagnostic value of CGH in patients with multiple tumours.
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.