ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2024
Head-to-head comparative study: evaluating three panels for MSI-PCR testing in patients with colorectal and gastric cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2024. 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.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDue to the lack of large clinical cohorts in the Chinese populations with colorectal cancer (CRC) and gastric cancer (GC), there is no consensus among the preferred panel for microsatellite instability (MSI)-PCR testing. This study aims to evaluate a more appropriate panel.
methodsWe tested the MSI status of 2572 patients with CRC and GC using the NCI panel and 2 mononucleotide panels (5 and 6 mononucleotide panels). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was employed to perform mismatch repair protein testing in 1976 samples.
resultsWe collected 2572 patients with CRC and GC. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) panel failed to detect 13 cases. Of the 2559 cases that received results from all three panels, 2544 showed consistent results. In the remaining 15 cases, 9 showed discrepancies between MSI-H and MSI-L, and 6 showed discrepancies between MSI-L and microsatellite stability (MSS). The misdiagnosis rate of MSI-L was significantly lower in two mononucleotide panels than in the NCI panel (12.5% vs 87.5%, p=0.010) in CRC. In patients with GC, only the NCI panel detected three MSI-L cases, while the results of the two mononucleotide panels were one MSI-H and two MSS. Based on their IHC results, the MSI-L misdiagnosis rate of the NCI panel was 33.3%. Furthermore, compared with two mononucleotide panels, the NCI panel had a much lower rate of all loci instability in CRC (90.8% and 90.3% vs 25.2%) and GC (89.5% and 89.5% vs 12.0%).
conclusionIn Chinese patients with CRC and GC, the five and six mononucleotide panels have advantages for detecting MSI over the NCI panel.
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.