Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16333309›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2006

A multiplex PCR predictor for aCGH success of FFPE samples.

E H van Beers, S A Joosse, M J Ligtenberg, R Fles, F B L Hogervorst, S Verhoef, P M Nederlof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing 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

104 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Single-Base Gene Variants inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Somatic mutation detection andFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

E H van BeersDivision of Experimental Therapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute NKI/AvL, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.v.beers@nki.nl
S A Joosse
M J Ligtenberg
R Fles
F B L Hogervorst
S Verhoef
P M Nederlof

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue archives are the largest and longest time-spanning collections of patient material in pathology archives. Methods to disclose information with molecular techniques, such as array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) have rapidly developed but are still not optimal. Array comparative genomic hybridisation is one efficient method for finding tumour suppressors and oncogenes in solid tumours, and also for classification of tumours. The fastest way of analysing large numbers of tumours is through the use of archival tissue samples with first, the huge advantage of larger median follow-up time of patients studied and second, the advantage of being able to locate and analyse multiple tumours, even across generations, from related individuals (families). Unfortunately, DNA from archival tissues is not always suitable for molecular analysis due to insufficient quality. Until now, this quality remained undefined. We report the optimisation of a genomic-DNA isolation procedure from FFPE pathology archives in combination with a subsequent multiplex PCR-based quality-control that simply identified all samples refractory to further DNA-based analyses.

Indexed as

FormaldehydeNucleic Acid HybridizationTissue FixationBreast NeoplasmsDNA, NeoplasmFemaleHumansParaffin EmbeddingPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA, NeoplasmFormaldehyde

Identifiers

PMID16333309
PMCPMC2361127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.