Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34531526›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

NTRK insights: best practices for pathologists.

Jaclyn F Hechtman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Future oncology (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. JCO precision oncology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

1 author.

Jaclyn F HechtmanMolecular Pathologist, Neogenomics 9490 NeoGenomics Way, Fort Myers, FL, 33912, USA. jaclyn.hechtman@neogenomics.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the discovery of an oncogenic tropomyosin-receptor kinase (TRK) fusion protein in the early 1980s, our understanding of neurotrophic tropomyosin-receptor kinase (NTRK) fusions, their unique patterns of frequency in different tumor types, and methods to detect them have grown in scope and depth. Identification of these molecular alterations in the management of patients with cancer has become increasingly important with the emergence of histology-agnostic, US Food and Drug Administration-approved, effective TRK protein inhibitors. Herein, we review the biology of TRK in normal and malignant tissues, as well as the prevalence and enrichment patterns of these fusions across tumor types. Testing methods currently used to identify NTRK1-3 fusions will be reviewed in detail, with attention to newer assays including RNA-based next-generation sequencing. Recently proposed algorithms for NTRK fusion testing will be compared, and practical insights provided on how testing can best be implemented and communicated within the multidisciplinary healthcare team.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPathologistsGene FusionHumansOncogene Proteins, FusionProtein Kinase InhibitorsReceptor, trkAOncogene Proteins, FusionProtein Kinase InhibitorsReceptor, trkA

Identifiers

PMID34531526
PMCPMC8860742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.