ArticleHaematologica2010
Double-staining chromogenic in situ hybridization as a useful alternative to split-signal fluorescence in situ hybridization in lymphoma diagnostics.
Article in Haematologica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nijmegen breakage syndrome (NBS).Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalignant lymphomas are classified based on morphology, immunophenotype, genetics and clinical features. The pathological diagnosis is generally considered difficult and prone to mistakes. Since non-random chromosomal translocations are specifically involved in specific entities, their detection is an important adjunct for increasing the reliability of the diagnosis. Recently, split-signal fluorescence in situ hybridization has become available as a robust method to detect chromosomal breaks in paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed tissues. A bright field approach would bring this technology within the reach of every pathology laboratory. DESIGN AND
methodsOur study was initiated to determine the consistency between chromogenic in situ hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization, both using split-signal probes developed for the detection of chromosomal breaks. Five hundred and forty cases of 11 lymphoma entities and reactive, benign lymphoid tissues, collected from eight different pathology laboratories, placed on 15 fluorescence in situ hybridization pre-stained tissue microarray slides, were double stained for the chromogenic hybridization. For each core morphology and actual signal were compared to the original fluorescence hybridization results. In addition, hematoxylin background staining intensity and signal intensity of the double-staining chromogenic in situ hybridization procedure were analyzed.
resultsWith respect to the presence or absence of chromosomal breaks, 97% concordance was found between the results of the two techniques. Hematoxylin background staining intensity and signal intensity were found to correspond. The overall morphology after double-staining chromogenic in situ hybridization had decreased compared to the initial morphology scored after split-signal fluorescence in situ hybridization staining.
conclusionsWe conclude that double-staining chromogenic in situ hybridization is equally reliable as fluorescence in situ hybridization in detecting chromosomal breaks in lymphoid tissue. Although differences in morphology, hematoxylin staining and chromogenic signal intensity vary between the tumor entities none of the entities appeared more easy or difficult to score.
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.