ArticleCancer medicine2020
Rinsing sampling of core needle biopsy for flow cytometric analysis: A favorable method for lymphoma diagnosis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional protocols utilize core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) to produce cell suspension for flow cytometry (FCM) is a diagnostic challenge for lymphoid malignancies. We aim to develop an alternative CNB rinsing technique (RT) to produce cell suspension for FCM during this mini-invasive procedure of CNB for lymphoma diagnosis.
methodsFNA and CNB specimens from the same lesion of 93 patients with suspected lymphoma were collected under the guidance of B-ultrasound simultaneously. The fresh CNB samples were prepared to cell suspension by RT for FCM immunophenotyping analysis (Group CNB-RT). Then, the CNB tissues after performing the RT process and the fresh FNA tissues were processed by conventional tissue cell suspension (TCS) technique to obtain the cell suspensions (Groups of CNB-TCS & FNA-TCS), respectively, as comparison. The diagnostic efficacies, as well as the concordances of the FCM results with reference to the morphologic diagnoses were compared in these three groups.
resultsRT could yield sufficient cells for FCM immunophenotyping analysis, though a lower cell numbers compared to TCS technique. The diagnostic concordance was comparable in group CNB-RT (91.1%) to the group CNB-TCS (88.9%) and group FNA-TCS (88.4%) (p = 0.819). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CNB-RT (91.1%; 100%) was not inferior to that of CNB-TCS (88.9%; 100%) and FNA-TCS (88.4%; 98.8%).
conclusionsThis study shows the CNB-RT presented non-inferior diagnostic concordance and efficacy as compared to the TCS technique. CNB-RT has the potential to produce cell suspension for FCM immunophenotyping while preserving tissue for lymphoma diagnosis and research.
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.