Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29747221›Full record

ArticleCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2018

Flow cytometry shows added value in diagnosing lymphoma in brain biopsies.

Matthijs van der Meulen, Jacoline E C Bromberg, King H Lam, Ruben Dammers, Anton W Langerak, Jeanette K Doorduijn, Johan M Kros, Martin J van den Bent, Vincent H J van der Velden

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthijs van der MeulenDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2251-9933
Jacoline E C BrombergDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
King H LamDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ruben DammersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anton W LangerakDepartment of Immunology, Laboratory Medical Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeanette K DoorduijnDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Johan M KrosDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Martin J van den BentDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Vincent H J van der VeldenDepartment of Immunology, Laboratory Medical Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the sensitivity, specificity and turnaround time of flow cytometric analysis on brain biopsies compared to histology plus immunohistochemistry analysis in tumors with clinical suspicion of lymphoma.

methodsAll brain biopsies performed between 2010 and 2015 at our institution and analyzed by both immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry were included in this retrospective study. Immunohistochemistry was considered the gold standard.

resultsIn a total of 77 biopsies from 71 patients, 49 lymphomas were diagnosed by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry results were concordant in 71 biopsies (92.2%). We found a specificity and sensitivity of flow cytometry of 100% and 87.8%, respectively. The time between the biopsy and reporting the result (turnaround time) was significantly shorter for flow cytometry, compared to immunohistochemistry (median: 1 vs. 5 days).

conclusionsFlow cytometry has a high specificity and can confirm the diagnosis of a lymphoma significantly faster than immunohistochemistry. This allows for rapid initiation of treatment in this highly aggressive tumor. However, since its sensitivity is less than 100%, we recommend to perform histology plus immunohistochemistry in parallel to flow cytometry. © 2018 The Authors. Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Clinical Cytometry Society.

Indexed as

Biopsy, Fine-NeedleFlow CytometryAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrainFemaleHumansLymphomaMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultbrain biopsiescentral nervous system lymphomadiagnostic accuracyflow cytometryimmunohistochemistryprimary brain tumor

Identifiers

PMID29747221
PMCPMC6585701
OpenAlexW2892610937

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.