ArticleJournal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics2022
Article in Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- NGS coverage accurately predictsFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitor intrinsic resistance due toTranslational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- TargetingCancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
MET amplifications (METamp) occur in 5% of NSCLC and represent in most case mechanisms of resistance to ALK and/or EGFR-targeted therapies. METamp detection can be performed using different techniques, although Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization (FISH) remains the gold-standard, especially in the context of subclonality. To date current evaluation algorithms of MET amplifications are time consuming. Aim of the study was to identify a faster, equally reliable diagnostic algorithm for the detection of METamp, which is currently classified in negativity and low/intermediate/high-level amplification. N=497 NSCLC cases with available MET-FISH data had been selected. The results based on the first evaluated 20 cells had been re-calculated and compared with the definitive results based on 60 cells. For n=464 (93.4%) identical results had been obtained when counting 20 cells instead of 60 cells. Thirty-three cases (5.6%) showed a discrepancy, leading to an incorrect upgrade to a higher diagnostic category (n=25) and to an incorrect downgrade (n=8). We propose a simplified, yet equally reliable MET FISH-algorithm: after accurate screening of the whole tumor slide, twenty tumor cells have to be evaluated and results calculated: If the result is negative, or if all criteria of high-level METamp are fulfilled, the case can be signed out as such. All other cases should be considered as equivocal and additional 40 cells have to be counted. Given that, reliable results can be obtained by counting 20 cells only and an "equivocal" category for cases that need further investigation have been clearly defined.
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.