ArticleDiagnostic pathology2008
Cytokeratin positivity in myxopapillary ependymoma--a potential diagnostic pitfall.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- When a dermatopathologist encounters the ultra-rare: A case series of superficial soft tissue/cutaneous myxopapillary ependymomas.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2024Article
- Application of Drug Testing Platforms in Circulating Tumor Cells and Validation of a Patient-Derived Xenograft Mouse Model in Patient with Primary Intracranial Ependymomas with Extraneural Metastases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyxopapillary ependymomas (MPE) occur in the filum terminale of the spinal cord, but also present in extra-spinal locations such as subcutaneous tissue and brain. They are slow growing grade I gliomas. Areas of solid growth pattern with aggregates of cells with "epithelioid morphology" seen in MPE can mimic metastatic carcinoma. The presence of occasional cells with clear cytoplasm and morphology can resemble Chordoma. Diagnosis can be missed due to these morphological similarities, which could affect patient management and hence, long term survival. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe two cases of MPE with cytokeratin (AE1 AE3, CAM 5.2, Cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20) expression.
conclusionMPE can be positive for Cytokeratins (CAM 5.2, AE1 AE3, CK7) and focally for EMA, which could be misdiagnosed as metastatic carcinoma. In cases demonstrating epithelioid and clear cell morphology, the diagnosis of MPE should be made in conjunction with histology, proper immunohistochemical profile which includes co-expression of GFAP, S-100 protein and epithelial markers, radiologic findings and site. It is important to be aware of the cytokeratin profile in MPE to avoid erroneous diagnosis with other tumour entities.
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.