Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19859710›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2009

[Predictive EGFR gene analyses in cytology].

L Bubendorf, S Savic

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Pathologe, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

L BubendorfInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsspital Basel, Schönbeinstr 40, 4003 Basel, Schweiz. lbubendorf@uhbs.ch
S Savic

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EGFR mutations and EGFR gene copy number are considered as predictive markers for response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).NSCLC are often diagnosed by cytology alone. The isolation or selection of a pure tumour cell population is critical for mutation analysis by PCR and sequencing in order to avoid an admixture of tumour DNA with normal DNA of adjacent benign cells. The collection of tumour cells is easily possible by laser microdissection (LMD).EGFR FISH analysis on cytological specimens with a high proportion of benign respiratory cells should be performed after automated relocation of carcinoma cells. The only hitherto established EGFR-FISH criteria were developed using histological specimens and cannot be applied to cytological specimens as such. The cell nuclei in cytological specimens are intact, while they are often truncated in histological specimens. Therefore, when applying the Colorado criteria, the rate of FISH positive results is higher in cytological than in histological specimens and in fact represents false positive results in cytology.Cytological specimens are equally well suited for EGFR gene analyses and FISH analysis as histological specimens. At present, the value of EGFR-FISH analysis is limited by the lack of validated criteria for FISH positivity.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAntineoplastic AgentsBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmErbB ReceptorsFalse Positive ReactionsGenetic MarkersHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceLungLung NeoplasmsMicrodissectionPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsAntineoplastic AgentsDNA, NeoplasmEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsGenetic MarkersProtein-Tyrosine Kinases

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.