ArticleOncotarget2015
Integration of microarray analysis into the clinical diagnosis of hematological malignancies: How much can we improve cytogenetic testing?
Article in Oncotarget, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03719183 (Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 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.
Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chromosome Karyotyping in Hematological Malignancies: Current Status and Future Directions.Current medical science · 2026Review
- Integrating next-generation sequencing into the routine neuroblastoma workflow identifies actionable genomic alterations and reduces low-yield karyotype testing.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Array comparative genomic hybridisation in haematological malignancies: A comprehensive review.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Application of Optical Genome Mapping for the Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Myeloid and Lymphoid Malignancies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Variant allele fraction or copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity? A comparison of testing platforms in the classification of myeloid neoplasia.Journal of hematopathology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Hi-C Sequencing for Detection of Gene Fusions in Hematologic and Solid Tumor Pediatric Cancer Samples.Cancers · 2024Article
- Genomic technologies for detecting structural variations in hematologic malignancies.Blood research · 2024Review
- Perspectives on the Application of Cytogenomic Approaches in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Acute myeloid leukemia with isolated del(5q) is associated with IDH1/IDH2 mutations and better prognosis when compared to acute myeloid leukemia with complex karyotype including del(5q).Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020Article
- Functional Site Discovery From Incomplete Training Data: A Case Study With Nucleic Acid-Binding Proteins.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 CasesAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical utility, diagnostic yield and rationale of integrating microarray analysis in the clinical diagnosis of hematological malignancies in comparison with classical chromosome karyotyping/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).
methodsG-banded chromosome analysis, FISH and microarray studies using customized CGH and CGH+SNP designs were performed on 27 samples from patients with hematological malignancies. A comprehensive comparison of the results obtained by three methods was conducted to evaluate benefits and limitations of these techniques for clinical diagnosis.
resultsOverall, 89.7% of chromosomal abnormalities identified by karyotyping/FISH studies were also detectable by microarray. Among 183 acquired copy number alterations (CNAs) identified by microarray, 94 were additional findings revealed in 14 cases (52%), and at least 30% of CNAs were in genomic regions of diagnostic/prognostic significance. Approximately 30% of novel alterations detected by microarray were >20 Mb in size. Balanced abnormalities were not detected by microarray; however, of the 19 apparently "balanced" rearrangements, 55% (6/11) of recurrent and 13% (1/8) of non-recurrent translocations had alterations at the breakpoints discovered by microarray.
conclusionMicroarray technology enables accurate, cost-effective and time-efficient whole-genome analysis at a resolution significantly higher than that of conventional karyotyping and FISH. Array-CGH showed advantage in identification of cryptic imbalances and detection of clonal aberrations in population of non-dividing cancer cells and samples with poor chromosome morphology. The integration of microarray analysis into the cytogenetic diagnosis of hematologic malignancies has the potential to improve patient management by providing clinicians with additional disease specific and potentially clinically actionable genomic alterations.
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.