↓ Skip to main content

Will a peripheral blood (PB) sample yield the same diagnostic and prognostic cytogenetic data as the concomitant bone marrow (BM) in myelodysplasia?

Overview of attention for article published in Leukemia Research, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Will a peripheral blood (PB) sample yield the same diagnostic and prognostic cytogenetic data as the concomitant bone marrow (BM) in myelodysplasia?
Published in
Leukemia Research, April 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.03.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Athena M. Cherry, Marilyn L. Slovak, Lynda J. Campbell, Kathy Chun, Virginie Eclache, Detlef Haase, Claudia Haferlach, Barbara Hildebrandt, Anwar M. Iqbal, Suresh C. Jhanwar, Kazuma Ohyashiki, Francesc Sole, Peter Vandenberghe, Daniel L. VanDyke, Yanming Zhang, Gordon W. Dewald

Abstract

In patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chromosome anomalies are detected by conventional cytogenetic studies (CCS) and/or interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of bone marrow (BM) samples and provide prognostic and diagnostic information, which can direct therapy. Whether peripheral blood (PB) can be substituted for bone marrow in these cases and can provide the same information remains unknown. Concurrent BM and PB specimens collected from 100 patients with recently diagnosed MDS were studied using both CCS and FISH. While 68% of BM samples showed an abnormal karyotype by CCS, only 31% of PB samples were abnormal by CCS. In 12% of patients, FISH and CCS were discordant due to the inability of the FISH panel to detect all possible abnormalities. However, only one case (1%) had a cryptic abnormality detected by FISH. BM and PB FISH were discordant in 3% of cases, most likely due to the smaller clone size in PB vs. BM. While PB should not be substituted for BM at diagnosis, it is a viable alternative for monitoring patients using the appropriate FISH probe(s).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Energy 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Leukemia Research
#1,477
of 2,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,098
of 175,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Leukemia Research
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,134 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 175,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.