ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2019
Utility of microdissected cytology smears for molecular analysis of thyroid malignancy.
Article in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Testing for Thyroid Nodules of Indeterminate Cytology: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2022Trial
- Estimating Tumor Proportion in Smear Slides for Reliable Molecular Analysis.Turk patoloji dergisi · 2026Article
- Molecular testing in indeterminate thyroid nodules: an additional tool for clinical decision-making.Pathologica · 2023Review
- Molecular diagnostics in the evaluation of thyroid nodules: Current use and prospective opportunities.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- New biomarkers: prospect for diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Optimization of pre-analytical and analytical steps for DNA and RNA analysis of fresh cytology samples.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Utility of microdissected cytology smears for molecular analysis of thyroid malignancy.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMolecular testing of thyroid fine-needle aspirates has demonstrated value in cases of indeterminate cytology (Bethesda categories III, IV, and V) enabling optimized individual patient management leading to better outcomes with health economic benefits. For most molecular testing modalities, including mutational panels and classifier analyses, part or all of a dedicated needle aspiration pass is required to obtain an adequate sample for testing. Our analysis, which is based on a combination approach (mutation detection and microRNA classifier status), has documented clinical validity and utility when performed on thyroid fine-needle aspirates placed directly into RNA preservative fluid. Here we show that the combination approach can be extended to microdissected stained cytology slides provides the physician greater opportunity to resolve cytological indeterminacy.
methodsExtracted nucleic acid from needle aspirate and corresponding cytology preparations of 47 thyroid nodules were analyzed using identical methodology and results were compared.
resultsOf 94 molecular analyses (47 mutational analyses, 47 microRNA classifier assessments based on a validated 10 marker panel) only 5 samples showed discordant results.
conclusionThese findings, together with supplementary work using archival specimens shows that the combination approach can be effectively applied to both direct aspirated thyroid nodule aspirates or to nucleic acid extracted from macrodissected and microdissected cytology slide smears, with the expectation of equivalent results. The advantages of both specimen sources, direct aspirate, and cytology slide smears are discussed.
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.