ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2004
E-cadherin and cytokeratin subtype profiling in effusion cytology.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection and analysis of multiple biomarkers in ovarian cancer: clinical significance in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis evaluation.Gland surgery · 2020Article
- Diagnostic value of E-cadherin and fibronectin in differentiation between reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions.Advanced biomedical research · 2012Article
- Basics of cytology.Avicenna journal of medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic utility of E-cadherin (E-CD) and cytokeratin (CK) subtype profiling in effusion cytology was investigated, employing immunocytochemistry on cellblock sections available from 211 metastatic carcinomas (MC), 6 mesotheliomas and 73 reactive mesothelial hyperplasias (MH). E-CD and monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (mCEA) stained 85% (120/141) and 65% (138/211) of MC, respectively. E-CD staining of MC was frequently heterogeneous (76/120) and absent in all anaplastic carcinomas (0/2). E-CD stained none (0/57) of MH while mCEA and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) stained 12% (9/73) and 32% (16/32) of MH, respectively. Of 6 mesotheliomas, E-CD focally stained in 2 while mCEA stained none and EMA stained all. CK20 and CK17 stained none of MH or mesotheliomas. CK20 stained 15% of MC and CK 17 stained 22% of MC. CK5/6 and high molecular weight CK stained all mesotheliomas, 56% and 88% of MH, 26% and 39% of MC, respectively. MC showed predominant CK7+/20-expression, with the exceptions of MC from mucinous type of colon/rectum and ovary showing predominant CK20 positive. E-CD may be a useful positive marker for MC in effusion cytology, although it may focally stain in some mesotheliomas. Any positive staining for CK20 of MC suggests MC from the gastrointestinal tract or ovary among others.
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.