ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2024
The unnecessary use of short tandem repeat testing on bone marrow samples in patients after 1 year following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
Article in American 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether the information provided by short tandem repeat (STR) testing and bone marrow (BM) biopsy specimens following hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) provides redundant information, leading to test overutilization, without additional clinical benefit.
methodsCases with synchronous STR and flow cytometric immunophenotyping (FCI) testing, as part of the BM evaluation, were assessed for STR/FCI concordance.
resultsOf 1199 cases (410 patients), we found the overall concordance between STR and FCI was 93%, with most cases (1063) classified as STR-/FCI-. Of all discordant cases, 75 (6%) were STR+/FCI-, with only 5 (6.7%) cases best explained as identification of disease relapse. Eight cases were STR-/FCI+, representing relapsed/residual disease. Analysis of cases 1 year or more from transplant (54% of all cases) indicated only 9 (1.5%) were STR+/FCI-, and none uniquely identified relapse.
conclusionsThese data suggest that STR analysis performed 1 year or more post-HSCT does not identify unknown cases of relapse. Furthermore, while STR testing is critical for identifying graft failure/rejection within the first year posttransplant, FCI appears superior to STR at detecting late relapses with low-level disease. Therefore, STR testing from patients 1 year or more post-HSCT may be unnecessary, as BM biopsy evaluation is sufficient to identify disease relapse.
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.