ReviewDer Pathologe2014
[Pleural mesothelioma. Cytology and molecular diagnostics].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The definitive diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in effusion cytology is often avoided or reluctantly made by cytology alone. The most probable reason for this skepticism is the lack of expertise in cytology among many pathologists and clinicians. When an effusion specimen is composed of cells with unequivocal cytological features of malignancy that have the morphology and immunophenotype of mesothelial cells, the cytological diagnosis of MM is straightforward. However, in the daily routine difficult cases of atypical mesothelial cells are often encountered and additional methods are required to establish an accurate diagnosis. In contrast to reactive mesothelial cells cells of MMs often harbor chromosomal aberrations, most frequently a polysomy in combination with a 9p21 deletion. These chromosomal aberrations can easily be detected by multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); therefore, FISH allows a reliable distinction between reactive mesothelial cells and MM cells. In order to be able to discriminate between MM and adenocarcinoma, an immunocytochemical panel consisting of different mesothelial and epithelial markers is very helpful. In most inconclusive cases of atypical mesothelial cells the combination of morphology, immunocytochemistry and FISH allows a better distinction between reactive mesothelial cells and MM in effusion cytology.
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.