ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2022
Evaluation of Cytologic Sample Preparations for Compatibility With Nucleic Acid Analysis.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-analytical Best Practices for RNA Sequencing from Small Biopsies and Cytologic Specimens.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha immunocytochemistry: A useful marker for detecting endocervical glandular lesions in alcohol-fixed smears.Cancer cytopathology · 2025Article
- Comparison of transbronchial biopsy techniques using needle and forceps biopsies in lung cancer for molecular diagnostics: a prospective, randomized crossover trial.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Article
- Molecular testing opportunities on cytology effusion specimens: the pre-analytic effects of various body fluid cytology preparation methods on RNA extraction quality and targeted sequencing.Journal of the American Society of CytopathologyArticle
- Comparative analysis of Ficoll-Hypaque and CytoLyt techniques for blood removal in breast cancer malignant effusions: effects on RNA quality and sequencing outcomes.Journal of the American Society of CytopathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, the influence of several key elements of the cytologic sample workflow on DNA and RNA content was evaluated.
methodsThe A549 cell line, patient-derived organoids, and pleural effusions were used to investigate the effect of (1) several collection media and delayed time to processing; (2) cytology specimens; (3) cytologic staining; and (4) formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell block processing on nucleic acid quality and quantity as determined by fragment analyzer, Qubit analysis (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based analysis on the Idylla platform (Biocartis).
resultsAlcohol-based collection media (CytoRich Red [Thermo Fisher Scientific] and EtOH95%) displayed high DNA and RNA preservation capacity, while phosphate-buffered saline and, to a lesser extent, formalin were associated with high RNA quality. Cytospin and smear cytology specimens were subject to DNA and RNA loss. Cytologic staining had no further impact on sample quality, hence destaining is not necessary. Both H&E-stained and unstained FFPE sections are compatible with nucleic acid analysis, despite a strong decrease in DNA and RNA quality.
conclusionsAlthough several key elements of the cytologic sample workflow have an influence on DNA and RNA quality and quantity, the selection of these elements is also dependent on the downstream (ancillary) testing methods.
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.