ReviewDer Pathologe2009
[The initial CUP situation and CUP syndrome: pathological diagnostics].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2009. 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.
- Cancer of unknown primary-Epidemiological trends and relevance of comprehensive genomic profiling.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- CUP Syndrome in Neuroendocrine Neoplasia: Analysis of Risk Factors and Impact of Surgical Intervention.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Localization of sporadic neuroendocrine tumors by gene expression analysis of their metastases.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Cancer of unknown primary (site)" (CUP) represents a frequent and often difficult task for diagnostic histopathology. In the initial CUP situation, immunohistochemistry, which is relatively cost-efficient and non-burdensome for the patient, contributes substantially to the targeted search for and identification of the primary tumor. It may be performed in a two-step algorithm (keratins as the first step, group and selective markers as the second step). However, in true CUP syndrome--a heterogeneous disease whose etiology and pathogenesis is still poorly understood--the primary tumor is rarely identified, and the immunohistochemical marker profile is often anomalous. Nevertheless, immunohistochemistry remains the most important special method, aiming at the phenotypical classification and particularly the identification of certain favorable therapy-responsive subsets. Novel methods for subtyping of CUP based on the analysis of gene expression profiles need to be further evaluated before their possible diagnostic application. Future basic and clinical research is required to unravel the still enigmatic tumor biology of the CUP syndrome and to improve the hitherto very unfavorable prognosis by developing new efficient therapy regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19816686What 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.