Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30600323›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2019

The utilization of cytologic and small biopsy samples for ancillary molecular testing.

Michael H Roh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Next step of molecular pathology: next-generation sequencing in cytology.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2024
    Review
  6. Precision Medicine in Cytopathology.Surgical pathology clinics · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

1 author.

Michael H RohDivision of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, United States. Roh.Michael@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has recently been an increased emphasis on the utilization of cytologic samples and small biopsies for not only diagnostic purposes but also for ancillary testing. In some instances, the ancillary tests contribute to the diagnosis and in other scenarios, they provide prognostic and theranostic information for the management of patients with advanced stage cancer. These ancillary tests include immunohistochemical biomarker analysis, molecular mutation analysis, and cytogenetic tests. Despite the finite nature of the cellular material procured in cytologic and small tissue biopsies, pathologists are tasked with ordering an increasing number of tests using these limited samples. This requires the pathologists to utilize and triage these samples in an optimal fashion so that as much information can be gleaned from a given specimen. This review will focus on the pre-analytic requirements for ancillary molecular and cytogenetic tests in the context of a discussion of the various preparation methods for cytologic and small biopsy specimens. The goal will be to provide the reader with the necessary concepts that can be utilized to develop optimal specimen selection and triage strategies to maximize the chances of effectively utilizing these samples for comprehensive diagnostic and relevant ancillary testing purposes.

Indexed as

BiopsyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPathology, ClinicalPathology, MolecularCytodiagnosisHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.