ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Tissue microarrey: a potential cost-effective approach for mismatch repair testing in colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeficiencies in Mismatch Repair (MMR) proteins are one of the major pathways in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). MMR status evaluation is recommended in every new CRC patient. However, this is not fully implemented due to high costs. Tissue microarray (TMA) enables allocating tissue cores from few specimens to a single paraffin block. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of TMA MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) compared to whole slide. The secondary objective was to evaluate and validate automatic digital image analysis software in differentiating pathological and normal TMA cores.
methodsPathological cores were defined if at least one MMR protein was unstained. Tumoral and normal tissue of 11 CRC patients with known MMR status was used to obtain 623 TMA cores. The MMR staining of each core was evaluated by a pathologist and compared to the whole slide result. Digital analysis software by 3DHistech Ltd. was used to identify cell nucleus and quantify nuclear staining in 323 tissue cores. To identifying pathological tissue, cores the cohort was divided into a test (N = 146 cores) and validation sets (N = 177 cores). A staining intensity score (SIS) was developed, and its performance compared to the pathologist review of each core and to the whole slide result.
resultsCompared to the whole slide, the pathologist's assessment had 100% sensitivity (n/N = 112/112) and 100% specificity (n/N = 278/278) with 95% lower limit of 97 and 99% respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of SIS was 77%. A cutoff of 55 was obtained from the ROC curve. By implementing the cutoff in the validation dataset, the SIS had sensitivity and specificity of 98.2% [90.1-100%] and 58.5% [49.3-67.4%] respectively.
conclusionsThe MMR status of CRC can be evaluated in TMA tissue cores thus potentially reducing MMR testing costs. The SIS can be used as triage indicator during pathologic review.
trial registrationInstitutional ethical approval was granted for the performance of this study (Emek Medical Center Ethics ID: EMC-19-0179).
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.