ArticleAnnals of hematology1996
Cytogenetic findings in 175 patients indicate that items of the Kiel classification should not be disregarded in the REAL classification of lymphoid neoplasms.
Article in Annals of hematology, 1996. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytogenetics have proved to be a valuable tool for classifying systemic lymphatic neoplasms, as this technique allows different stem line aberrations and clonal developments to be distinguished. This study was designed to analyze how far groups defined according to common cytogenetic features correlated with their position in either the Kiel (KC) or the REAL classification. Cytogenetic analyses were performed on material from 175 patients with lymphoid neoplasms (LN). Samples were prepared from peripheral blood and bone marrow in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), from bone marrow in multiple myeloma (MM), and from lymph node biopsies in lymphomas. The results of this study support the inclusion of ALL, MM, and extranodal lymphomas into a comprehensive classification, because their chromosomal aberrations were always characteristic for LN. From the cytogenetic point of view, a subgroup of ALL appears as a leukemic manifestation of lymphoblastic lymphoma. MM have structural aberrations of chromosomes 1, 11, and 14 and secondary aberrations of chromosomes 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18, all of which are characteristic for lymphatic disease. The groups with follicle center cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma correlate well with our results both in the low-grade subtype and in the blastic variant type, the majority of cases demonstrating t(14; 18) and its variants and t(11; 14), respectively. In contrast, the group of diffuse large B-cell (DLB) lymphomas proved to be heterogeneous on the basis of our cytogenetic results. Accordingly, we would suggest keeping the immunoblastic lymphoma (IB) subtype defined by the KC. IB demonstrates no stem line aberration in common with any other group and seems to be characterized by stem line aberrations involving chromosomes 3 and 6. As some DLB lymphomas have a t(14;18) or variant translocations involving chromosome 18, they should either be separated as a subgroup or included into the group of follicle center lymphomas.
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.