ArticleScientific reports2019
A model for the impact of FFPE section thickness on gene copy number measurement by FISH.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhancing RNA Capture Efficiency in Spatial Transcriptomics: A Review of Innovative Technologies and Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- MET Alterations in Cancer and MET-Targeted Therapy: Detection Strategies, Treatment Efficacy, and Emerging Technologies.Targeted oncology · 2025Review
- Risk Reclassification of Patients with Endometrial Cancer Based on Tumor Molecular Profiling: First Real World Data.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) assays to detect gene amplification such as HER2 or MET in tumors are used for prognosis evaluation and selection of targeted therapies. Although FISH guidelines recommended 4~6 μm FFPE sections, many laboratories use 2~3 μm sections, which is a common practice for H&E staining and immunohistochemistry. A former study concluded that section thickness did not affect FISH results. We found, however, that thinner FFPE sections may lead to false negative results for gene amplification. A mathematic model was constructed and cell-line based controls with known gene copy number were prepared, and the model had a reasonable fit with the experimental data. The model revealed that even when counting the apparently full-sized nuclear images, many of them have partial volumes, which leads to under-estimation of gene copy number. Therefore, improperly thinner sections are prone to give false negative results, and thicker sections give a better approximation to the true value. The discrepancy between this and the former study was discussed. In summary, the model applies generally to FISH/ISH detection of gene copy number, and section thickness is an important parameter to control for precision medicine research, assay development, clinical trials and daily practice in pathology laboratory.
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.