ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2016
Differential diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in situ from non-neoplastic urothelia: Analysis of CK20, CD44, P53 and Ki67.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Roles of Immunohistochemical Markers CK20, CD44, AMACR, and p53 in Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- SPINK1 immunohistochemistry: An ancillary tool to diagnose urothelial carcinoma in situ and urothelial dysplasia.Pathology, research and practice · 2025Article
- Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Tissue Biomarkers in Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Loss of MTAP expression is strongly linked to homozygous 9p21 deletion, unfavorable tumor phenotype, and noninflamed microenvironment in urothelial bladder cancer.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Article
- Management of Primary Female Urethral Adenocarcinoma: Two Rare Case Reports and Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Clinicopathological significance of claspin overexpression and its efficacy as a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of P53 and CK20 Immunohistochemical Markers in Comparison with Morphologic Findings in Low- and High-grade Urothelial Carcinomas.Iranian journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Advanced primary urethral cancer: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2019Article
- Does the addition of AMACR to CK20 help to diagnose challenging cases of urothelial carcinoma in situ?Diagnostic pathology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlat urothelial lesions comprise a spectrum of morphologic changes ranging from reactive atypia to carcinoma in situ (CIS). Urothelial dysplasia and CIS are associated with the recurrence and progression of urothelial carcinoma. Distinguishing CIS and dysplasia from reactive atypia based on histolopathogical features alone is often difficult. Using different immunohistochemical markers such as Cytokeratin 20 (CK20), CD44, p53, and Ki-67 is recommended for differential diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immunohistochemical pattern of these antibodies to differentiate different flat urothelial lesions.
methodsIn this cross- sectional study, three groups of bladder biopsy specimens were evaluated: 20 samples with reactive urothelial lesions, 20 histologically diagnosed as CIS, and 20 morphologically normal samples. Immunohistochemical staining of CK20, p53, CD44 and Ki-67 markers was performed on paraffin-embedded blocks. The groups were compared using chi square test, and the diagnostic value of the markers were evaluated with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values.
resultsCK20 was full thickness positive in 15 (75%) CIS samples and negative in all samples of the normal and reactive groups (p<0.001); CD44 was positive in 2 (10%) cases of the CIS group and in 17 (85%) of the reactive group; this marker was negative in all the normal samples (p<0.001). P53 was positive in 12 (60%) samples of the CIS group and negative in all samples of the normal and reactive groups (p<0.001). Ki67 was positive in 13 (65%) samples of the CIS group and 1 (5%) sample of the reactive group. This marker was negative in all samples of the normal group (p<0.001).
conclusionThe results of this study revealed that CK20, CD44, P53 and Ki67 are useful in distinguishing CIS from reactive and normal samples. However, they should be used in a panel including at least three markers. Correlation with the morphologic features is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27579290PMC5004568W2521444082What 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.