ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wild-type p53 overexpression inHaematologica · 2026Article
- A rapid, accessible real-time PCR approach to identify UBA1 somatic mutations in VEXAS syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- From genotype to phenotype: decoding mutations in blasts by holo-tomographic flow cytometry.Light, science & applications · 2025Article
- Integrating holotomography and deep learning for rapid detection of NPM1 mutations in AML.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Early Prediction and Streamline of Nucleophosmin Mutation Status in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Using Cup-Like Nuclear Morphology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Detection of Hybrid Fusion Transcripts, Aberrant Transcript Expression, and Specific Single Nucleotide Variants in Acute Leukemia and Myeloid Disorders with Recurrent Gene Rearrangements.Pathobiology : journal of immunopathology, molecular and cellular biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsPeripheral blood and bone marrow samples collected for clinical testing at variable time points during patient management were tested by quantitative, real-time, RT-PCR and results were compared to findings from a Myeloid NGS panel, mutant NPM1 IHC and FC.
resultsRT-PCR showed superior sensitivity compared to NGS, IHC and FC with the main challenge of NGS, IHC and FC being the ability to identify a low disease burden (<0.5% NCN by RT-PCR). Nevertheless, the positive predictive value of NGS, IHC and FC were each ≥ 80% indicating that positive results by those assays are typically associated with RT-PCR positivity. IHC, unlike bulk methods (RT-PCR, NGS and FC), is able provide information regarding cellular/architectural context of disease in biopsies. FC did not identify any
conclusionOverall, our findings demonstrate that RT-PCR shows superior sensitivity compared to a traditional Myeloid NGS, suggesting the need for "deep-sequencing" NGS panels for NGS-based monitoring of residual disease in
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.