Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31199826›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comprehensive validation of liquid-based cytology specimens for next-generation sequencing in cancer genome analysis.

Toshiaki Akahane, Tomomi Yamaguchi, Yasutaka Kato, Seiya Yokoyama, Taiji Hamada, Yukari Nishida, Michiyo Higashi, Hiroshi Nishihara, Shinsuke Suzuki, Shinichi Ueno and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Finding More in Less: Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer Using Residual Cytology Samples.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Next generation sequencing in cytology.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Toshiaki AkahaneDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Tomomi YamaguchiDepartment of Pathology, Laboratory of Cancer Medical Science, Hokuto Hospital, Obihiro, Japan.
Yasutaka KatoDepartment of Pathology, Laboratory of Cancer Medical Science, Hokuto Hospital, Obihiro, Japan.
Seiya YokoyamaDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Taiji HamadaDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Yukari NishidaDepartment Surgical Pathology, Kagoshima University Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan.
Michiyo HigashiDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Hiroshi NishiharaDepartment of Biology and Genetics, Laboratory of Cancer Medical Science, Hokuto Hospital, Obihiro, Japan.
Shinsuke SuzukiDepartment of Clinical Cancer Research, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 890-8544 Kagoshima, Japan.
Shinichi UenoDepartment of Clinical Cancer Research, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 890-8544 Kagoshima, Japan.
Akihide TanimotoDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7508-1624
Kagoshima University · JPHokuto Hospital · JPKagoshima University Hospital · JPKeio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In addition to conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC) is also used for immunocytochemistry and gene analysis. However, an appropriate method to obtain high quality DNA for next-generation sequencing (NGS) using LBC specimens remains controversial. We determined the optimal conditions for fixation with an alcohol-based fixative for LBC and DNA extraction using cultured cancer cell lines and clinical specimens. The extracted DNA was processed for NGS after the DNA quality was confirmed based on the DNA concentration and degree of degradation. The optimal conditions for cultured cells to obtain high quality DNA were to fix the cells at a density of 6 × 103 or 2 × 104 cells/mL and to use the magnetic bead-based DNA extraction method. Even after storing the fixed cells for 90 days, DNA extracted using the above and other extraction kits, including membrane-based methods, did not undergo degradation. Furthermore, 5-year-old residual LBC samples demonstrated high DNA quality that was suitable for NGS. Furthermore, a cancer genome panel analysis was successfully performed with DNA extracted from cultured cells fixed at 6 × 103 cells/mL for 90 days, and with DNA from residual LBC samples even after 1 year of storage. Residual LBC samples may be a useful source of DNA for clinical NGS to promote genome-based cancer medicine.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorCytodiagnosisDNAGenes, NeoplasmGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMCF-7 CellsNeoplasmsSpecimen HandlingDNA

Identifiers

PMID31199826
PMCPMC6568385
OpenAlexW2952755989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.