ArticleOncology letters2010
Genetic diagnosis of patients with esophageal cancer using FISH.
Article in Oncology letters, 2010. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- CEP3 and CEP17 DNA probe potential in the genetic diagnosis and prognostic prediction of esophageal squamous cell cancer.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
- Molecular pathological diagnosis for early esophageal cancer in Kazakh patients.Oncology letters · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to the clarify the diagnostic efficacy of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in Kazakh patients with esophageal cancer (EC). FISH was compared with the pathological examination of biopsy specimens with DNA probes. We enrolled 20 patients, of which 15 were males and 5 females, with an average age of 58.3 years, who had abnormal esophaguses on barium radiological digital imaging. Touch preparations were performed on biopsy specimens from all of the patients and were examined using FISH for chromosomal abnormalities. We compared the FISH results with the pathology slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Classification, according to pathology, identified 2 cases of class II, 3 cases of IIIa, 1 case of IIIb, 2 cases of IV, 12 cases of class V and no cases of class I. The cases classified as class IIIb or higher were considered to be positive for cancer. Using histopathology, 10 cases were diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma and 5 were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma, with one case being false-negative. Thus, the sensitivity of the pathological examination was 93% and the specificity was 100%. Using FISH, 16 cases showed aberrant copy numbers in either chromosome 3 or 17. By comparison, pathology did not reveal any false-positive or false-negative cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. The centromeres of chromosome 3 copy numbers was significantly higher (p=0.035) than the centromeres of chromosome 17. Our study compared FISH to diagnose aneusomic esophageal cancer cells with the pathology of biopsied tissue. Our findings suggest that FISH is a useful and objective assay for the detection of malignant cells of esophageal cancer. In our study, the centromeres of chromosome 3 was the more sensitive probe for the diagnosis of esophageal cancer in Kazakh patients.
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.