ArticleActa cytologica2023
DNA Extracted from Cytologic Slides Is a Valuable Source for PCR-Based Molecular Tests.
Article in Acta cytologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Archived medical specimens as antemortem DNA references for disaster victim identification, optimization study following the October 7 massacre.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Cytopathology of the microbiome-immune interface: Emerging applications of cytology in infectious, inflammatory, and neoplastic conditions.CytoJournal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2023
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDNA extracted from cytologic samples is occasionally used for various molecular tests. The aim of this study was to evaluate DNA extracted from differently prepared cytologic slides that can be used for PCR-based molecular tests.
methodsFor each 23 cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma or colorectal adenocarcinoma tissues, six touch-imprinted cytological slides were prepared (group 1∼3), and remnant tissues were blocked for FFPE tissue (group 4). Cytologic slides were grouped by preparation methods: air-dried slides (group 1), fixed slides (group 2), and stained slides (group 3). Fixed slides were classified as 95% ethanol fixed (group 2A) and CytoRich Red Preservative solution fixed (group 2B). Stained slides were divided in 3 ways: Giemsa, Pap, and H&E stained (group 3A, 3B, and 3C, respectively). DNA extracted from each group was evaluated for concentration, 260/280 ratio, DNA Integrity Number (DIN) value, and mutation.
resultsDNA concentration was highest in group 1 and lowest in group 2B. DIN value was highest in group 2A and lowest in group 2B. A mutation of BRAF or KRAS genes was detected in 18 FFPE tissue samples. Matched DNA extracts from groups 1, 2A, and 3 produced results consistent with FFPE tissue results, while mutation testing was successful for only four samples of DNA from group 2B.
conclusionThe mutation tests worked well for most samples except CytoRich Red Preservative-fixed slides. This study indicates that stained and unstained cytologic slides are a suitable source of PCR-based molecular tests as long as they are fixed in ethanol or stored for a short time in an air-dried condition.
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.