Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26643918›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2015

Differential diagnostic value of CD5 and CD117 expression in thoracic tumors: a large scale study of 1465 non-small cell lung cancer cases.

Mark Kriegsmann, Thomas Muley, Alexander Harms, Luca Tavernar, Torsten Goldmann, Hendrik Dienemann, Esther Herpel, Arne Warth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Thymic carcinomas].Der Pathologe · 2016
    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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark KriegsmannInstitute of Pathology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, Heidelberg, Germany. mark.kriegsmann@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Thomas MuleyTranslational Research Unit, Thoraxklinik at Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. Thomas.muley@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Alexander HarmsInstitute of Pathology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, Heidelberg, Germany. Alexander.harms@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Luca TavernarInstitute of Pathology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, Heidelberg, Germany. Luca.tavernar@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Torsten GoldmannClinical and Experimental Pathology, Research Center Borstel, Borstel, Germany. tgoldmann@fz-borstel.de.
Hendrik DienemannDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Thoraxklinik at Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. Hendrik.dienemann@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Esther HerpelInstitute of Pathology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, Heidelberg, Germany. Ester.herpel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Arne WarthInstitute of Pathology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, Heidelberg, Germany. Arne.warth@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Center for Lung Research · DEResearch Center Borstel - Leibniz Lung Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThoracic pathologists are frequently faced with tissue specimens from intrathoracic/mediastinal tumors. Specifically the differentiation between thymic and pulmonary squamous cell carcinomas (SqCC) can be challenging. In order to clarify the differential diagnostic value of CD5 and CD117 in this setting, we performed a large scale expression study of both markers in 1465 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases.

methodsTissue microarrays of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded resection specimens of 1465 NSCLC were stained with antibodies against CD117 and CD5. Positivity of both markers was correlated with clinicopathological variables.

resultsCD117 was positive in 145 out of 1457 evaluable cases (9.9 %) and CD5 was positive in 133 out of 1427 evaluable cases (9.3 %). 28 cases (1.9 %) showed coexpression of CD117 and CD5. Among the 145 cases that were positive for CD117, 97 (66.8 %) were adenocarcinomas (ADC), 34 (23.4 %) were SqCC, 5 (3.4 %) were adenosquamous carcinomas (ADSqCC), 8 (5.5 %) were large cell carcinomas (LC), and one (0.6 %) was a pleomorphic carcinoma (PC). In the CD5 positive group consisting of 133 cases, 123 (92.4 %) were ADC, 0 (0 %) were SqCC, 4 (3.0 %) were ADSqCC, 3 (2.2 %) LC and 3 (2.2 %) were PC. None of the 586 SqCC showed expression of CD5. No association of CD117- or CD5 positivity to patients' age, pathological stages or to T-, N-, or M- categories was observed.

conclusionsA substantial subset of NSCLC exhibit positivity of CD117 and CD5. Since CD5 expression was not observed in pulmonary SqCC, but is expressed in the majority of thymic squamous cell carcinomas, the application of this immunomarker is a valuable tool in the differential diagnosis of thoracic neoplasms.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCarcinoma, Squamous CellCD5 AntigensDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedProto-Oncogene Proteins c-kitThymomaThymus NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCD5 AntigensProto-Oncogene Proteins c-kit

Identifiers

PMID26643918
PMCPMC4672573
OpenAlexW2195216866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.