ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Fluorescent in situ hybridization has limitations in screening NRG1 gene rearrangements.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Oncogenic gene fusions in cancer: from biology to therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNRG1 fusion is a promising therapeutic target for various tumors but its prevalence is extremely low, and there are no standardized testing algorithms for genetic assessment. MOTHODS: In this study, we analyzed 3008 tumors using Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to screen for NRG1 translocation and p-HER3 expression.
resultsOur results demonstrated no cases with p-HER3 positivity through IHC. Nonetheless, 29 cases (0.96%) were identified positive for NRG1 translocation through FISH, with three different signal types. FISH-positive cases were subsequently subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. However, only eight of these cases were confirmed with NRG1 fusion through NGS. Notably, we divided FISH into three types and FISH type C group was consistent with NGS results. All NGS NRG1 fusion tumors were adenocarcinomas, with a higher prevalence in females. Our findings indicate that although FISH has limitations in screening NRG1 gene rearrangements, NRG1 fusions can be reliably detected with signals exhibiting low copy numbers of the 5'-end of the gene and no fusion signals.
conclusionConsidering the high cost of NGS, FISH remains a useful method for screening NRG1 fusions in various types of tumors. This study provides valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms of NRG1 fusion and identifies potential treatment targets for patients suffering from this disease.
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.