ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2007
Towards the molecular characterization of disease: comparison of molecular and histological analysis of esophageal epithelia.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The columnar-lined mucosa at the gastroesophageal junction in non-human primates.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2009Article
- Accuracy of identification of tissue types in endoscopic esophageal mucosal biopsies used for molecular biology studies.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable quantification of gene expression offers the possibility of more accurate and prognostically relevant characterization of tissues than potentially subjective interpretations of histopathologists. We measured the expression of 18 selected genes and compared them to histological features in a spectrum of esophageal disease to evaluate the feasibility of molecular characterization of normal and pathologic esophageal epithelia. Esophageal tissue biopsies from 82 patients with foregut symptoms were laser capture microdissected, and the expression levels of 18 selected genes were measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Linear discriminant analysis, which uses combinations of genes to distinguish between histological groups, was performed to compare gene expression and the following five histological groups: (1) normal squamous epithelium (n = 35), (2) reflux esophagitis (n = 13), (3) non-dysplastic Barrett's (n = 33), (4) dysplastic Barrett's (n = 16), (5) adenocarcinoma (n = 31). A panel of seven genes had 90-94% predictive power to distinguish non-dysplastic and dysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Clustering analysis revealed structure in gene expression values even in the absence of histology. Expression levels in 17 genes differed significantly across histological groups. Classification based on gene expression agreed with histopathological assessment in the following percentage of cases: normal squamous epithelium = 53%, reflux esophagitis = 31%, non-dysplastic Barrett's = 76%, dysplastic Barrett's = 40%, and adenocarcinoma = 59%. Interestingly, predictive power improved markedly when inflammatory and dysplastic tissues were removed (77-94%). Gene expression classification agrees well with histopathological examination. When differences occur, it is unclear whether this effect is due to intraobserver variability in pathological diagnosis or to a genuine difference between gene expression and histopathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17623264What 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.