ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2008
Clinical application of array-based comparative genomic hybridization for the identification of prognostically important genetic alterations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2008. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Array comparative genomic hybridisation in haematological malignancies: A comprehensive review.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Gene expression and splicing alterations analyzed by high throughput RNA sequencing of chronic lymphocytic leukemia specimens.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- High Throughput FISH Analysis: A New, Sensitive Option For Evaluation of Hematological Malignancies.Turkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2013Article
- Evaluation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia by oligonucleotide-based microarray analysis uncovers novel aberrations not detected by FISH or cytogenetic analysis.Molecular cytogenetics · 2011Article
- Atypical 11q deletions identified by array CGH may be missed by FISH panels for prognostic markers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Leukemia · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic aberrations have increasingly gained attention as prognostic markers in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has improved the detection rate of genomic alterations in CLL from approximately 50% using conventional cytogenetics to greater than 80%. More recently, array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has gained popularity as a clinical tool that can be applied to detect genomic gains and losses of prognostic importance in CLL. Array CGH and FISH are particularly useful in CLL because genomic gains and losses are key events with both biologic and prognostic significance, while balanced translocations have limited prognostic value. Although FISH has a higher technical sensitivity, it requires separate, targeted hybridizations for the detection of alterations at genomic loci of interest. Array CGH, on the other hand, has the ability to provide a genome-wide survey of genomic aberrations with a single hybridization reaction. Array CGH is expanding the known genomic regions of importance in CLL and allows these regions to be evaluated in the context of a genome-wide perspective. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the use of genomic aberrations as tools for risk-stratifying patients for therapy, thus increasing the need for reliable and high-yield methods to detect these genomic changes. In this review, we consider the use of array CGH as a clinical tool for the identification of genomic alterations with prognostic significance in CLL, and suggest ways to integrate this test into the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory work flow.
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.