Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31938240›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2018

Comparison of microsatellite status detection methods in colorectal carcinoma.

Mei-Li Chen, Jie-Yu Chen, Jing Hu, Qian Chen, Li-Xia Yu, Bao-Rui Liu, Xiao-Ping Qian, Mi Yang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mei-Li ChenThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Jie-Yu ChenDepartment of Pathology, Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School Nanjing, China.
Jing HuThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Qian ChenNanjing Drum Tower Hospital Group Suqian People's Hospital Suqian, China.
Li-Xia YuThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Bao-Rui LiuThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Xiao-Ping QianThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Mi YangThe Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University and Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, China.
Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are two commonly accepted methods for detecting microsatellite status. One is to detect amplified microsatellite loci by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the other is to detect mismatch repair gene (MMR) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). PCR detection is considered to be accurate in clinical operations while IHC is widely used due to ease of operation and lesser expense. In order to compare IHC with PCR in detecting microsatellite status in colorectal carcinoma, a total of 569 samples of colorectal carcinoma resection were collected in the Department of Pathology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, between June 2014 and June 2017. In all samples, IHC and PCR was used to detect microsatellite status and the consistency of results between the two methods was compared. We found that 48 cases of microsatellite instability (MSI) were detected by PCR including 37 cases of microsatellite instability high (MSI-H), 11 cases of microsatellite instability low (MSI-L), and 521 cases of MSS. MSI accounted for 8.44% of all cases and MSI-H accounted for 6.50%. IHC results of the 569 patients showed that 69 cases were deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and 500 cases were proficient mismatch repair (pMMR). dMMR accounted for 12.13% of all cases. Loss expression of PMS2 protein was the most common while MSH6 was rare. The coincidence rate of the two methods for detecting microsatellite states was 91.92%. IHC and the PCR method had high consistency in microsatellite status. Compared with PCR, the IHC method is more economical and more convenient for clinical operations. When the 4 repair proteins were without deficiency detected by IHC, it could be diagnosed as MSS/MSI-L and further PCR was not necessary. When any repair protein was found to be deficient, PCR detection was needed to determine whether MSI existed. Our conclusion will save a lot of time and costs in clinical work.

Indexed as

colorectal carcinomaImmunohistochemistry (IHC)microsatellite instability (MSI)mismatch repair gene (MMR)polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

Identifiers

PMID31938240
PMCPMC6958115
OpenAlexW3006477744

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.