ArticleCancer medicine2023
Usefulness of on-site cytology of liver tumor biopsy in specimen sampling for cancer genomic profiling test.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors of non-diagnostic percutaneous liver tumor biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of 938 biopsies based on cause of error.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Oil blotting paper for formalin fixation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition-collected sample volumes on glass slides.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Sensitivity of cytology in liver tumor biopsy and its significance in the prompt clinical diagnosis of non-hepatocellular carcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Usefulness of on-site cytology of liver tumor biopsy in specimen sampling for cancer genomic profiling test.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAppropriate sample selection with a tumor fraction ≥20% without necrosis contamination is required for successful cancer genomic profiling (CGP). Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is performed to assess adequate sampling.
methodThis retrospective study included 54 patients who underwent CGP using liver tumor biopsy specimen with ROSE.
resultThe sampling success rate (98.1%) was higher than the previously reported 77.5%-88.9%. ROSE was performed once in 51 patients and twice in three patients; for those undergoing ROSE twice, the first ROSE was negative for malignancy, or showed few tumor cells with necrotic cell contamination, while the second ROSE obtained from another location showed abundant malignant cells. In these patients, the CGP was successful using the second specimen, though the first sample did not meet the required criteria for CGP test.
conclusionPerforming ROSE during liver tumor biopsy may be useful for CGP test sampling because ROSE prevents sampling errors and contributes to adequate sampling.
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.