Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26076721›Full record

ReviewJournal of pathology and translational medicine2015

The Utilization of Cytologic Fine-Needle Aspirates of Lung Cancer for Molecular Diagnostic Testing.

Michael H Roh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pathology and translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The utilization of cytologic and small biopsy samples for ancillary molecular testing.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Review
  9. Salvaging the supernatant: next generation cytopathology for solid tumor mutation profiling.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Concurrent fine needle aspirations and core needle biopsies: a comparative study of substrates for next-generation sequencing in solid organ malignancies.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author.

Michael H RohDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this era of precision medicine, our understanding and knowledge of the molecular landscape associated with lung cancer pathogenesis continues to evolve. This information is being increasingly exploited to treat advanced stage lung cancer patients with tailored, targeted therapy. During the management of these patients, minimally invasive procedures to obtain samples for tissue diagnoses are desirable. Cytologic fine-needle aspirates are often utilized for this purpose and are important not only for rendering diagnoses to subtype patients' lung cancers, but also for ascertaining molecular diagnostic information for treatment purposes. Thus, cytologic fine-needle aspirates must be utilized and triaged judiciously to achieve both objectives. In this review, strategies in utilizing fine-needle aspirates will be discussed in the context of our current understanding of the clinically actionable molecular aberrations underlying non-small cell lung cancer and the molecular assays applied to these samples in order to obtain treatment-relevant molecular diagnostic information.

Indexed as

Biopsy, fine-needleCytologyLung neoplasmsMolecular testingPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID26076721
PMCPMC4508567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.