ArticleArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2021
Evaluating Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Status Using Cytology Effusion Specimens to Determine Eligibility for Immunotherapy.
Article in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in Autosomal Dominant and Recessive APC Mutation-Negative Colorectal Adenomatous Polyposis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Review
- Synergizing liver systemic treatments with interventional oncology: friend or foe?The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Modulation of tumor environment in colorectal cancer - could gut microbiota be a key player?Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Detection of Microsatellite Instability: State of the Art and Future Applications in Circulating Tumour DNA (ctDNA).Cancers · 2021Review
- Perspectives on Immunotherapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: The approval of pembrolizumab for treatment of patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) advanced cancers has led to increased requests for MSI and/or MMR immunoperoxidase (IPOX) testing. Diagnoses for patients with advanced-stage cancer are frequently made from cytology specimens. OBJECTIVE.—: To investigate the feasibility of using cell block (CB) preparations of effusions for MMR IPOX evaluation. DESIGN.—: Surgical pathology cases of colorectal and endometrial carcinomas with known MMR/MSI status and matched effusions with available CBs were identified. Cell block sections were evaluated for adequacy and stained with MMR IPOX (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2). The CBs were reviewed, the number of tumor cells quantified, and MMR IPOX was interpreted as retained, lost, suboptimal, or noncontributory. RESULTS.—: We identified 748 cases with MMR/MSI testing on surgical specimens having matched effusions. Of these, 131 cases (17.5%) had an available CB and 53 were deemed adequate for MMR IPOX staining. MMR IPOX results between effusion CBs and surgical pathology specimens were concordant in 45 of 53 (85%), inconclusive in 6 of 53 (11%), and discordant in 2 of 53 (4%) cases. CONCLUSIONS.—: There was high concordance of MMR IPOX testing between cytologic and surgical specimens, with no false-positive and 2 false-negative CB results. Limited tumor cells, staining in cells indefinite as tumor, tumor staining heterogeneity, and lack of internal control staining were problematic in some cases. Our findings indicate that cytologic effusion specimens may be suitable substrates for MMR IPOX biomarker testing; however, inconclusive cases need to be interpreted with caution.
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.