ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
How useful is bone marrow study as an initial investigative tool without lymph node biopsy in malignant lymphoma?: Eleven years of experience at a single institution.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis as an onset of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A case report.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- The Profile of MicroRNA Expression in Bone Marrow in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prediction Model of Bone Marrow Infiltration in Patients with Malignant Lymphoma Based on Logistic Regression and XGBoost Algorithm.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- How useful is bone marrow study as an initial investigative tool without lymph node biopsy in malignant lymphoma?: Eleven years of experience at a single institution.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone marrow (BM) study plays an important role as initial investigation specimen of lymphoma as well as staging lymphoma. This study aimed to investigate the utility of BM studies for classification of lymphoma and evaluate features of BM involvement by lymphoma over a period of 11 years.
methodsA total of 1162 cases of BM studies for lymphoma evaluation were reviewed for the incidence of lymphoma subtypes, the percentage of marrow involvement, the pattern of involvement and discordance with histopathologic diagnoses of lymph nodes and other tissues.
resultsA total of 255 of 1162 cases underwent BM study without pathologic information, and 108 cases show lymphoma involvement. Lymph node biopsy underwent in 66 cases, and 10 cases show discordant result between BM and lymph node biopsy. Seven discordant cases were due to insufficient further studies. Lymphoma was diagnosed only by BM study in 38 cases. Abnormal lymphocytes were found in BM aspiration in 34 cases. Also, abnormal clonal lymphocytes were detected by flow cytometry in 26 cases. Four cases showed disease-related chromosomal abnormalities. FISH analysis detected abnormal findings in two cases, however, discordant with other additional studies.
conclusionsDiscrepancies between the BM study and lymph node biopsy were due to insufficient further study and discordance of immunohistochemical stain result. BM study can be utilized as initial diagnosis of lymphoma by the combination of morphological feature, involvement pattern, and additional tests such as flow cytometry, chromosomal analysis, and FISH analysis. Thus, BM study with further analysis is an essential choice when lymph node biopsies are unavailable.
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.