Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24799951›Full record

ArticleCytoJournal2014

The state of cell block variation and satisfaction in the era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine.

John P Crapanzano, Jonas J Heymann, Sara Monaco, Aziza Nassar, Anjali Saqi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CytoJournal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cellularity of Routinely Prepared Cell Blocks: Insights From an International Study.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. PD-L1 and beyond: Immuno-oncology in cytopathology.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

John P CrapanzanoAddress: Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Jonas J HeymannAddress: Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Sara MonacoUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Aziza NassarDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Anjali SaqiAddress: Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity Enders · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the recent past, algorithms and recommendations to standardize the morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular classification of lung cancers on cytology specimens have been proposed, and several organizations have recommended cell blocks (CBs) as the preferred modality for molecular testing. Based on the literature, there are several different techniques available for CB preparation-suggesting that there is no standard. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of CB preparation techniques utilized in various practice settings and analyze current issues, if any. MATERIALS AND

methodsA single E-mail with a link to an electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Cytopathology and other pathologists. Questions pertaining to the participants' practice setting and CBs-volume, method, quality and satisfaction-were included.

resultsOf 95 respondents, 90/95 (94%) completed the survey and comprise the study group. Most participants practice in a community hospital/private practice (44%) or academic center (41%). On average, 14 CBs (range 0-50; median 10) are prepared by a laboratory daily. Over 10 methods are utilized: Plasma thrombin (33%), HistoGel (27%), Cellient automated cell block system (8%) and others (31%) respectively. Forty of 90 (44%) respondents are either unsatisfied or sometimes satisfied with their CB quality, with low-cellular yield being the leading cause of dissatisfaction. There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality. DISCUSSION: Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs. In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

Indexed as

Cell blockcytopathologyfine-needle aspirationlung cancermolecular testingpersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID24799951
PMCPMC4007481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.