Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detection of MDM2-CDK4 Amplification by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in 200 Paraffin-embedded Tumor Samples: Utility in Diagnosing Adipocytic Lesions and Comparison With Immunohistochemistry and Real-time PCR

Sirvent, Nicolas, Coindre, Jean-Michel, Maire, Georges, Hostein, Isabelle, Keslair, Frédérique, Guillou, Louis, Ranchere-Vince, Dominique, Terrier, Philippe, Pedeutour, Florence·2007·American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Abstract

Atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcomas and dedifferentiated liposarcomas are characterized by the amplification of MDM2 and CDK4 genes. To evaluate the accuracy of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis in the differential diagnosis of adipose tissue tumors, we investigated MDM2-CDK4 status by FISH, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)] and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a series of 200 adipose tumors. First, we evaluated MDM2-CDK4 amplification and expression in a series of 94 well-defined adipose tissue tumors. Results showed that FISH was interpretable in 45 of 50 cases (90%), and was more specific and sensitive than Q-PCR and IHC. We then used the same techniques as complementary diagnostic tools in a series of 106 adipose and soft tissue tumors of unclear diagnosis to distinguish between (i) lipomas and atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcomas, (ii) malignant undifferentiated tumors and dedifferentiated liposarcomas, and (iii) a variety of benign tumors and liposarcomas. Our results indicate that although helpful, IHC alone is often insufficient to solve diagnostic problems. FISH and Q-PCR methods gave concordant results and were equally informative in most cases. However, the proportion of noninterpretable cases was slightly higher with FISH than with Q-PCR. When tumor cells represented a minor component of the tumor tissue, such as with inflammatory tumors, FISH was more powerful than Q-PCR by allowing visualization of individual cells. In conclusion, we recommend that the evaluation of MDM2-CDK4 amplification using FISH or Q-PCR be used to supplement IHC analysis when diagnosis of adipose tissue tumors is not possible based on clinical and histologic information alone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/pas.0b013e3180581fff

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Sirvent, N., Coindre, J.-M., Maire, G., Hostein, I., Keslair, F., Guillou, L., Ranchere-Vince, D., Terrier, P., & Pedeutour, F.
Venue
American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Published
2007-10
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
1476-1489
ISSN
0147-5185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046198206
Cited by
374
References
1
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detection of MDM2-CDK4 Amplification by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in 200 Paraffin-embedded Tumor Samples: Utility in Diagnosing Adipocytic Lesions and Comparison With Immunohistochemistry and Real-time PCR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/pas.0b013e3180581fff
The paper
Sirvent, N., Coindre, J.-M., Maire, G., Hostein, I., Keslair, F., Guillou, L., Ranchere-Vince, D., Terrier, P., & Pedeutour, F. (2007). Detection of MDM2-CDK4 Amplification by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in 200 Paraffin-embedded Tumor Samples: Utility in Diagnosing Adipocytic Lesions and Comparison With Immunohistochemistry and Real-time PCR. American Journal of Surgical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e3180581fff

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.