ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2010
Molecular cytogenetic characterization of esophageal cancer detected by comparative genomic hybridization.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expression ofCancers · 2021Article
- Expression of 3q oncogeneOncology letters · 2019Article
- Identification of SEC62 as a potential marker for 3q amplification and cellular migration in dysplastic cervical lesions.BMC cancer · 2016Article
- The cluster of miR-143 and miR-145 affects the risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through co-regulating fascin homolog 1.PloS one · 2012Article
- Silence of HIN-1 expression through methylation of its gene promoter in gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2011Article
- Let's talk about Secs: Sec61, Sec62 and Sec63 in signal transduction, oncology and personalized medicine.Signal transduction and targeted therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimDetection of cytogenetic alterations in esophageal cancer (EC). A total of 40 cases of primary EC and their paired nearby nontumor tissues were collected. The comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is the technique that brings out the gains and losses of chromosome fragments and was applied to determine the aberrations from the tissue DNA. In noncancer tissues, the gains were at 19p (5/40, 13%), 20q (5/40, 13%), and losses at 9p (13/40, 33%), 2q (10/40, 25%), 12q (10/40, 25%), 13q (10/40, 25%), 5q (9/40, 23%), 6q (9/40, 23%), 7q (9/40, 23%), and 8p (9/40, 23%). Two cases in nontumor tissues showed no CGH change. In the 40 cases of primary EC, the gains were at 8q (10/40, 25%), 3q (9/40, 23%), 2q (7/40, 18%), and 13q (7/40, 18%), and the losses were at 1q (8/40, 20%), 4q (8/40, 20%), 3p (7/40, 18%), 5q (7/40, 18%), and 18q (7/40, 18%) in comparison with paired nearby noncancerous tissues. We found that the loss aberrations were on 1q, 2p, 3p, 5q, 6q, 9p, 11p, 15q, 16q, 18q, 21q and gains on 20p in both tumor and nontumor tissues; nevertheless, -4p, -7q, -8p, -10q, -12q, -13q, -14q and +17p, +19q, +22q were only found in nontumor tissues and +1q, +2pq, +3q, -4q, +4q, +5q, 7p, +8q, +10q, +12q, +13q, +14q -17p, -19pq, -22q in EC. From these results, we suggest that most of the tissues near the cancer parts of EC may be considered as a precancerous region. The alteration between cancer and noncancer tissues may play a role in the development of EC.
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.