Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29161240›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2018

Rapid nodal staging of head and neck cancer surgical specimens with flow cytometric analysis.

Valtteri Häyry, Åsa Kågedal, Eric Hjalmarsson, Pedro Farrajota Neves da Silva, Cecilia Drakskog, Gregori Margolin, Susanna Kumlien Georén, Eva Munck-Wikland, Ola Winqvist, Lars Olaf Cardell

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Valtteri HäyryDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Åsa KågedalDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Eric HjalmarssonDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Pedro Farrajota Neves da SilvaDepartment of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 64 Stockholm, Sweden.
Cecilia DrakskogDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Gregori MargolinDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Susanna Kumlien GeorénDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Eva Munck-WiklandDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Ola WinqvistDepartment of Medicine, Unit of Immunology and Allergy, Karolinska Institutet, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars Olaf CardellDivision of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of metastatic spread of head and neck cancer to cervical lymph nodes is essential for optimal design of therapy. Undetected metastases lead to mortality, which can be prevented by better detection methods.

methodsWe analysed 41 lymph nodes from 19 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Each lymph node was divided in two, one half processed for histopathology and the other half dissociated into single-cell suspension, stained for the carcinoma cell markers cytokeratin 5/8 (CK5/8), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and epithelial mucin (MUC-1), and analysed with flow cytometry. Flow cytometry data were compared with histopathology performed on serial sections and immunohistochemistry. Six cervical lymph nodes from cancer-free patients were used to establish baseline levels in flow cytometry.

resultsFlow cytometry analysis (fluorescence-activated cell sorting; FACS) detected all six metastases confirmed by histopathology as well as the histologically negative nodes. Importantly, among nine sentinel lymph nodes, FACS analysis detected <1% malignant cells in four cases, not found in histopathology. Results from flow cytometry analysis can be obtained within 3 h of the time of biopsy.

conclusionsWe show that flow cytometric analysis of nodal tissue is sensitive and reliable in identifying metastases of OSCC. Flow cytometry is inexpensive and fast, providing a possibility of perioperative diagnostics and immediate treatment planning.

Indexed as

Flow CytometryAdultAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellCell SeparationColoring AgentsEpithelial Cell Adhesion MoleculeFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImmunohistochemistryKeratin-5Keratin-8Lymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedColoring AgentsEPCAM protein, humanEpithelial Cell Adhesion MoleculeKeratin-5Keratin-8MUC1 protein, humanMucin-1

Identifiers

PMID29161240
PMCPMC5808027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.