ArticleHistopathology2014
FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. Comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA.
Article in Histopathology, 2014. 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.
- Potential Role for a Panel of Immunohistochemical Markers in the Management of Endometrial Carcinoma.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2019Article
- Identification of genetic alterations associated with primary resistance to EGFR-TKIs in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR sensitive mutations.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo check the usefulness of a standardized protocol of PTEN FISH in 31 endometrial carcinomas (ECs) in comparison with SNP array (SNPA), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and immunohistochemistry. METHODS AND
resultsFluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis showed two PTEN copies in 17 cases, three copies in nine cases, hemizygous deletion in two cases, and diverse cell populations with different PTEN copy number in three cases. A good correlation was seen between FISH and SNPA, particularly in cases with three copies. FISH identified two cases with entire deletion of chromosome 10, but did not identify a focal deletion of PTEN. Five cases with PTEN deletion and duplication of the second allele by SNPA were interpreted as normal by FISH. Concordance between FISH and MLPA was seen in 15 cases with two copies, and in two cases with PTEN deletion. Six cases were interpreted as amplified by MLPA, but showed polyploidy by FISH. FISH was superior to SNPA and MLPA in assessing the tumours with diverse cell populations with different PTEN copies.
conclusionsThe results show good concordance between FISH, SNPA and MLPA. SNPA was superior in tumours with deletion of one copy and duplication of the second allele. FISH was superior in assessing tumour heterogeneity.
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.