Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16575508›Full record

ReviewMedical molecular morphology2006

New trends of immunohistochemistry for making differential diagnosis of breast lesions.

Takuya Moriya, Atsuko Kasajima, Kazuyuki Ishida, Yoshiyuki Kariya, Jun-Ichi Akahira, Mareyuki Endoh, Mika Watanabe, Hironobu Sasano

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical molecular morphology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fluorescence-based codetection with protein markers reveals distinct cellular compartments for altered MicroRNA expression in solid tumors.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2010
    Article
  12. Androgens in human breast carcinoma.Medical molecular morphology · 2010
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. A novel myoepithelial/progenitor cell marker in the breast?Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2007
    Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Takuya MoriyaDepartment of Pathology, Tohoku University Hospital, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan. moriya@patholo2.med.tohoku.ac.jp
Atsuko Kasajima
Kazuyuki Ishida
Yoshiyuki Kariya
Jun-Ichi Akahira
Mareyuki Endoh
Mika Watanabe
Hironobu Sasano

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry is widely used for pathological diagnosis of breast lesions. Other than hormone receptors and HER2/neu analysis for primary breast carcinomas, several markers may be useful for differential diagnoses, although in limited situations. To decide the malignant potential of intraductal proliferative lesions, analysis for the staining pattern of cytokeratins may be a good reference. Most ductal carcinoma in situ cases are diffusely positive for luminal cell markers (CK8, CK18, CK19), but negative for basal cell markers (CK5/6 and CK14). However, usual ductal hyperplasia may show the mosaic staining patterns for any of these markers, which may indicate a heterogeneous cell population in benign lesions. Myoepithelial markers (alpha-SMA, myosin, calponin, p63, CD10) are almost consistently positive for benign papillomas but they do not completely distinguish intraductal papillary carcinomas. Preservation of myoepithelial layer is the diagnostic key when looking at benign sclerosing lesions, including carcinoma with pseudoinvasive structures. E-cadherin is mostly positive for ductal carcinomas but negative for lobular carcinomas. Some of the lobular carcinomas are positive for 34betaE12, but they are consistently negative for CK5/6. Comparison with histopathological findings of hematoxylin and eosin is essential to make proper diagnosis in the individual case.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, LobularDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansImmunohistochemistryPapilloma, IntraductalBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.