ArticleCancer medicine journal2020
Article in Cancer medicine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Overexpression/amplification of erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) is a major prognostic factor in gastroesophageal cancers; it is currently the only biomarker established for the selection of targeted therapy for patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). Current standard procedure for determining ERBB2 status in such patients is immunohistochemistry (IHC), followed by in situ hybridization (ISH), when IHC result is equivocal. Insufficient knowledge regarding the utilities of chromosomal microarray (CMA) has hindered its use as an adjunct tool in ERBB2 analysis. Here, we performed CMA on 7 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) GEA specimens previously tested by ERBB2 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and evaluated the concordance and performance of CMA. CMA identified 4 (57.1%) samples with amplification of ERBB2, compared to 3 (42.9%) by FISH. CMA also detected several additional DNA copy number variants in these samples, which may have prognostic and therapeutic indications. Further case studies and clinical trials may provide evidence for the utility of CMA-based genomic studies in the management of patients with suspected ERBB2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33426545PMC7790124W3120828568What 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.