ReviewAnnals of hematology1995
Contribution of immunophenotypic and genotypic analyses to the diagnosis of acute leukemia.
Review in Annals of hematology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic accuracy in acute leukemia (AL) can be improved if traditional morphology and cytochemistry are supplemented with immunophenotypic and genotypic analyses. This multiparameter approach is of crucial importance for the management of patients, as it enables the identification of leukemic syndromes with distinct biological features and response to treatment. Immunophenotyping using monoclonal antibodies has been universally accepted as a useful adjunct to morphological criteria. This technique is particularly valuable in diagnosing and subclassifying acute lymphoblastic leukemia and is also essential in certain types of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), such as AML with minimal differentiation or acute megakaryoblastic leukemia. Cytogenetic findings can be quite helpful in establishing the correct diagnosis and can add information of prognostic significance. A number of specific chromosomal abnormalities have been recognized that are very closely, and sometimes uniquely, associated with morphologically and clinically distinct subsets of leukemia. An even more basic understanding of normal and malignant hematopoietic cells has begun to evolve as molecular biology begins to unravel gene misprogramming by Southern and Northern blot analysis, the polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization. With the extensive use of these techniques it has become apparent that a proportion of leukemias exhibit the biologically relevant molecular defect in the absence of a karyotypic equivalent. On the other hand, apparently uniform chromosomal abnormalities such as the t(1;19) (q23;p13), t(9;22) (q33;q11), t(8;14) (q24;q32), or t(15;17) (q21;q21) may differ at the molecular level. Data collected from these modern technologies have introduced a greater complexity, which needs to be taken into consideration to improve both the diagnostic precision and the reproducibility of current classifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
7632814What 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.