Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15662499›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2005

[Simultaneous analysis of t(X;18) by FISH- und SYT/SSX-RT-PCR in synovial sarcoma].

K Katenkamp, P Richter, T Slatosch, D Katenkamp, A Berndt

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Pathologe, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

K KatenkampInstitut für Pathologie, Klinikum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. Kathrin.Katenkamp@med.uni-jena.de
P Richter
T Slatosch
D Katenkamp
A Berndt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synovial sarcoma diagnosis and differential diagnostic distinction from other spindle cell sarcomas may be difficult. In these cases the detection of the t(X;18) translocation by FISH and RT-PCR is diagnostically extremely helpful. This study was aimed at the question whether or not simultaneous use of both methods is required for evidence of t(X;18) translocation.Paraffin-embedded tumour specimens from 53 patients were included in the study which were considered to be possible synovial sarcomas on the basis of histological aspect and immunohistochemical profile. Detection of t(X;18) was performed using FISH and RT-PCR simultaneously. Nuclei and amplifiable RNA could be isolated from 39 of the 53 included cases (75%). In 72% of these 39 cases FISH and RT-PCR showed identical negative or positive results. The remainder of the cases (28%) showed either a typical PCR product or a positive FISH signal.In conclusions FISH could be confirmed by typical PCR products and is therefore qualified as an internal quality control. Nevertheless tumour biological and methodical reasons have an important influence on both methods. Consequently in difficult cases simultaneous FISH and RT-PCR analysis is necessary for a clear evidence of t(X;18) translocation.

Indexed as

Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18Chromosomes, Human, XTranslocation, GeneticHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, NeoplasmSarcoma, SynovialRNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.