ArticleMedicine2016
Comparison between whole mount tissue preparations and virtual tissue microarray samples for measuring Ki-67 and apoptosis indices in human bladder cancer: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue microarray validation in cervical carcinoma studies. A methodological approach.Histology and histopathology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recent tissue microarray (TMA)-based studies have shown that cell proliferation- and apoptosis-related biomarkers are associated with clinical outcomes in patients with bladder urothelial carcinoma. However, little is known about the differences in these biomarker measurements between whole mount tissue preparations and TMAs. This study aimed to elucidate the discrepancy in the measurements of Ki-67 indices (KIs) and apoptosis indices (AIs) between whole mount tissue preparations and TMAs of bladder urothelial carcinoma samples.Whole mount tissue preparations for Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling were made from 30 patients who underwent transurethral resection of bladder urothelial carcinoma. Digital microscopy-assisted virtual TMAs, consisting of 3 small round areas (1 or 0.6 mm in diameter), were generated from the same whole mount tissue preparations. The measurement results in highly reactive areas of biomarkers were compared between the whole mount tissue preparation- and the TMA-based methods. Bland-Altman plot analysis, regression analysis, and Kendall τ were performed to investigate differences in the measurement results, systematic biases, and correlations between biomarkers.Although the Bland-Altman plot analysis demonstrated that almost all the plots were within the limits of agreement, fixed biases were detected in the 1- and 0.6-mm TMAs for the KI (0.181 and 0.222, respectively) and the AI (0.055 and 0.063, respectively). Proportional biases were also detected in the 1- and 0.6-mm TMAs for the AI (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, positive correlations between KIs and AIs were observed in whole mount tissue preparations (r = 0.260, P = 0.044) and in the 1 mm TMAs (r = 0.375, P = 0.004); however, no such correlation was observed in the 0.6 mm TMAs.Our study suggests that the measurement results for certain biomarkers of bladder urothelial carcinoma obtained from TMA-based samples can be susceptible to systematic bias, and the lack of correlation between biomarkers cannot be avoided as it is in whole mount tissue preparations. Virtual TMAs can help identify systematic bias and establish a better sampling strategy prior to performing high-throughput TMAs for biomarker studies.
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.