ArticleThe Eurasian journal of medicine2022
Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Test in Myeloid Neoplasms and Evaluation with the Clinical Results.
Article in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMyeloid malignancies are heterogeneous disorders due to defective hematopoiesis and myeloid differentiation of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell. The molecular landscape of the diseases is complex. Molecular alterations are used for classification and evaluation of prognosis and treatment. We aimed to evaluate the advantages of the next-generation sequencing panel testing in myeloid malignancies and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated the results of 54 patients who underwent next-generation sequenc- ing myeloid panel testing, with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), polymerase chain reaction results and the clinical outcomes. Target genes in the panel were ASXL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NPM1, NRAS, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SH2B3, SRSF2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, and ZRSR2.
resultsDiagnoses were acute myeloid leukemia, essential thrombocytosis, polistemia vera, primary myelo- fibrosis, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), chronic myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Twenty-eight missense, 8 frameshift, 5 stop gain, and 3 in-frame mutations were detected. A double mutation was detected in JAK-2 with next-generation sequencing in the patient who was given a false negative result due to polymerase chain reaction limitation.
conclusionScreening multiple mutations simultaneously, is time and cost-effective. With the panel test, it is possible to determine the diagnosis, prognosis and targeted treatment options with a single test. Next- generation sequencing myeloid panel tests might be a powerful guide for clinicians.
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.