SynthesisBMC cancer2022
Application of One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (OSNA) in different cancer entities and usefulness in prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Molecular Detection of Lymph Node Metastases with One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (OSNA) Pooling in Prostate Cancer: The POPCORN Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymph node (LN) status is a key prognostic factor in the decision-making process of different cancer entities, including prostate cancer (PCa). Sectioning and haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining technique remain the gold standard for the evaluation of LN metastases despite some limitations, especially low sensitivity in detecting an accurate tumour burden within the LN, as well as a subjective and time-consuming result. One-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) quantifies mRNA copies of cytokeratin 19 (CK19) in a fast, objective, automated, and reproducible way, raising a general interest to explore its utility for lymphatic metastasis identification in different malignancies.
methodsTo present the latest evidence related to the detection of LN metastases in several tumours by using OSNA compared with the conventional H&E method, a systematic review of articles published since March 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. References from primary papers and review articles were checked to obtain further potential studies. Our procedure for evaluating records identified during the literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria. With the aim to design and justify future clinical routine use of OSNA in PCa, novel PCa evidence has been included in this review for the first time.
resultsTwenty five studies were included. LN from six different groups of tumours: breast, gastrointestinal, gynecological, lung, head and neck and prostate cancers has been assessed. OSNA was compared with post-operative formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections with H&E staining as the reference standard. Contingency tables were created, and concordance rate, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were reported. Seventeen studies analysed the discordant cases using different techniques.
conclusionOSNA method has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of LN metastases in several CK19 expressing tumours. Available evidence might encourage future investigations about its usage in PCa patients to improve LN staging and prognosis.
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.