A Difference Is a Difference if It Makes a Difference

Detmer, Don E.; Rheuban, Karen S.

doi:10.1378/chest.12-1751

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, even this method carries intrinsic sources of error and the assessment bias. The studies show that cytology is not sensitive but specific (identifies true negative results better), and therefore, biopsy is preferred as a conventional method67. On the other hand, using the same data set, and a set of standardized evaluation criteria, agreement between six pathologists was only 58% for breast cancer diagnosis68.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A high throughput approach for analysis of cell nuclear deformability at single cell level

Ermis

Akkaynak

Chen

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various physiological and pathological processes, such as cell differentiation, migration, attachment, and metastasis are highly dependent on nuclear elasticity. Nuclear morphology directly reflects the elasticity of the nucleus. We propose that quantification of changes in nuclear morphology on surfaces with defined topography will enable us to assess nuclear elasticity and deformability. Here, we used soft lithography techniques to produce 3 dimensional (3-D) cell culture substrates decorated with micron sized pillar structures of variable aspect ratios and dimensions to induce changes in cellular and nuclear morphology. We developed a high content image analysis algorithm to quantify changes in nuclear morphology at the single-cell level in response to physical cues from the 3-D culture substrate. We present that nuclear stiffness can be used as a physical parameter to evaluate cancer cells based on their lineage and in comparison to non-cancerous cells originating from the same tissue type. This methodology can be exploited for systematic study of mechanical characteristics of large cell populations complementing conventional tools such as atomic force microscopy and nanoindentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A high throughput approach for analysis of cell nuclear deformability at single cell level

Ermis

Akkaynak

Chen

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stage progression is associated with decreased surgical cure rates and poorer overall survival [2]. Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of lung nodules are common [3, 4], and the timely care of lung nodules suspicious for cancer is presumed critical for individual patients and population health [5, 6]. Researchers have examined the impact of delays in lung cancer resection for more than 2 decades [7] We know that, as a group, patients with larger tumors do worse than patients with smaller tumors [8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Timeliness of Care and Lung Cancer Tumor-Stage Progression: How Long Can We Wait?

Maiga

Deppen

Pinkerman

et al. 2017

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Timely care of lung cancer is presumed critical, yet clear evidence of stage progression with delays in care is lacking. We investigated the reasons for delays in treatment and the impact these delays have on tumor-stage progression. Methods We queried our retrospective database of 265 veterans who underwent cancer resection from 2005 to 2015. We extracted time intervals between nodule identification, diagnosis, and surgical resection; changes in nodule radiographic size over time; final pathologic staging; and reasons for delays in care. Pearson’s correlation and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare cancer growth and stage by time to treatment. Results Median time from referral to surgical evaluation was 11 days (interquartile range, 8 to 17). Median time from identification to therapeutic resection was 98 days (interquartile range, 66 to 139), and from diagnosis to resection, 53 days (interquartile range, 35 to 77). Sixty-eight patients (26%) were diagnosed at resection; the remainder had preoperative tissue diagnoses. No significant correlation existed between tumor growth and time between nodule identification and resection, or between tumor growth and time between diagnosis and resection. Among 197 patients with preoperative diagnoses, 42% (83) had intervals longer than 60 days between diagnosis and resection. Most common reasons for delay were cardiac clearance, staging, and smoking cessation. Larger nodules had fewer days between identification and resection (p = 0.03). Conclusions Evaluation, staging, and smoking cessation drive resection delays. The lack of association between tumor growth and time to treatment suggests other clinical or biological factors, not time alone, underlie growth risk. Until these factors are identified, delays to diagnosis and treatment should be minimized.

show abstract

Faut-il implanter le dépistage du cancer bronchique dans notre pays et à quelles conditions ?

Milleron

Gounant

Couraud

2015

Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualités

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Difference Is a Difference if It Makes a Difference

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

A high throughput approach for analysis of cell nuclear deformability at single cell level

A high throughput approach for analysis of cell nuclear deformability at single cell level

Timeliness of Care and Lung Cancer Tumor-Stage Progression: How Long Can We Wait?

Faut-il implanter le dépistage du cancer bronchique dans notre pays et à quelles conditions ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About