ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2004
E-cadherin and calretinin as immunocytochemical markers to differentiate malignant from benign serous effusions.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotyping EMT and MET cellular states in lung cancer patient liquid biopsies at a personalized level using mass cytometry.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Detection of carcinoma in serous effusions: a review.American journal of cancer research · 2021Review
- Evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of effusion cytology.Oman medical journal · 2013Article
- Diagnostic value of E-cadherin and fibronectin in differentiation between reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions.Advanced biomedical research · 2012Article
- Use of Panel of Markers in Serous Effusion to Distinguish Reactive Mesothelial Cells from Adenocarcinoma.Journal of cytologyArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the expressions of E-cadherin and calretinin in exfoliated cells of serous effusions and evaluate their values in distinguishing malignant effusions from benign ones.
methodsFresh serous effusion specimens were centrifuged and exfoliated cells were collected. Cells were then processed with a standardized procedure, including paraformaldehyde fixation, BSA-PBS solution washing and smears preparation. E-cadherin and calretinin were detected by immunocytochemistry (ICC).
resultsIn the exfoliated cells of serous effusions, most of carcinoma cells only expressed E-cadherin, and most of mesothelial cells only expressed calretinin, and benign cells (lymphocytes and granulocytes) did not express either of them. For E-cadherin, 85.7% (30/35) of malignant effusions and 8.1% (3/37) of benign fluids were ICC-positive (P<0.001). The sensitivity of E-cadherin ICC in the diagnosis of malignant effusions was 85.7%, specificity 91.9%, and diagnostic rate 88.9%. For calretinin, 94.6% (35/37) of benign effusions and 11.4% (4/35) of malignant effusions were ICC-positive (P<0.001). The sensitivity of calretinin ICC in the diagnosis of benign effusions was 94.6%, specificity 88.6%, and diagnostic rate 91.7%. For diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions by combining E-cadherin ICC and calretinin ICC, the specificities were up to 100% and 97.1%, respectively.
conclusionE-cadherin ICC and calretinin ICC are sensitive and specific in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant serous effusion specimens and specificities are evidently improved when both markers are combined.
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.