Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29286619›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2017

Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases

Vishal Ashok, Ramya Ranganathan, Smitha Chander, Sharat Damodar, Sunil Bhat, Nataraj K S, Satish Kumar A, Sachin Suresh Jadav, Mahesh Rajashekaraiah, Sundareshan T S

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2017. 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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.

NCT03719183 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled120ConditionsAcute Myeloid LeukemiaArmsConventional Cytogenetics Studies, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization (FISH) Panels, Multiplex FISH (M-FISH)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vishal AshokDepartment of Cytogenetics, Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bangalore, India. Email: vishal1988ashok@gmail.com
Ramya Ranganathan
Smitha Chander
Sharat Damodar
Sunil Bhat
Nataraj K S
Satish Kumar A
Sachin Suresh Jadav
Mahesh Rajashekaraiah
Sundareshan T S
Directorate of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Genetic markers are crucial fort diagnostic and prognostic investigation of hematological malignancies (HM). The conventional cytogenetic study (CCS) has been the gold standard for more than five decades. However, FISH (Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization) testing has become a popular modality owing to its targeted approach and the ability to detect abnormalities in non-mitotic cells. We here aimed to compare the diagnostic yields of a FISH panel against CCS in HMs. Methods: Samples of bone marrow and peripheral blood for a total of 201 HMs were tested for specific gene rearrangements using multi-target FISH and the results were compared with those from CCS. Results: Exhibited a greater diagnostic yield with a positive result in 39.8% of the cases, as compared to 17.9% of cases detected by CCS. Cases of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) benefited the most by FISH testing, which identified chromosomal aberrations beyond the capacity of CCS. FISH was least beneficial in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) where the highest concordance with CCS was exhibited. Acute lymphocytic leukaemia (ALL) demonstrated greater benefit with CCS. In addition, we found the following abnormalities to be most prevalent in HMs by FISH panel testing: RUNX1 (21q22) amplification in ALL, deletion of D13S319/LAMP1 (13q14) in CLL, CKS1B (1q21) amplification in multiple myeloma and deletion of EGR1/RPS14 (5q31/5q32) in MDS, consistent with the literature. Conclusions: In conclusion, FISH was found to be advantageous in only a subset of HMs and cannot completely replace CCS. Utilization of the two modalities in conjunction or independently should depend on the indicated HM for an optimal approach to detecting chromosomal aberrations.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsAsian PeopleCytogenetic AnalysisHematologic NeoplasmsHumansIndiaIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaryotypingPrognosisReferral and ConsultationChromosomal aberrationcytogeneticsfluorescence in situ hybridizationhematological malignancies

Identifiers

PMID29286619
PMCPMC5980910
OpenAlexW2775481925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.