ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology1996
Clinical implications of cytogenetic classification in adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia patients.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 1996. 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.
- Biclonal Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Commonly Characterized by Partial Trisomy 18q Involving MALT1 and BCL2.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- Silencing of the novel p53 target gene Snk/Plk2 leads to mitotic catastrophe in paclitaxel (taxol)-exposed cells.Molecular and cellular biology · 2003Article
- Relationship between chromosomal changes complexity and disease aggressiveness in myeloid and lymphoid disorders.Journal of cellular and molecular medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytogenetic analysis performed on pretreated unstimulated, bone marrow/peripheral blood samples of 46 adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) showed sufficient metaphases in 39 patients and insufficient metaphases in 7 patients. G-banded karyotype analysis of these 39 patients revealed non-random clonal chromosome abnormalities in 31 patients and apparently normal karyotypes in 8 patients. Numerical abnormalities involving chromosome trisomies and structural abnormalities involving different types of chromosomal translocations and deletions were encountered in varying percentages. These patients were grouped into various cytogenetic subsets on the basis of their karyotype pattern and followed-up to evaluate their prognosis. Patients with apparently normal karyotypes showed good prognosis and those with 6q- showed intermediate prognosis. But all other patients with hyperdiploid, pseudodiploid and hypodiploid karyotypes were associated with poor prognosis. Cytogenetic classification of ALL patients is thus of clinical importance, as it helps the early identification of clinically important prognostic groups.
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.