Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29538329›Full record

ReviewCancers2018

Update on Immunohistochemistry for the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer.

Kentaro Inamura

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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

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

  1. Standardized Uptake Values Derived fromContrast media & molecular imaging · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Liquid biopsy in lung cancer.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Neoplasia in the dromedary camel: a review (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Kentaro InamuraDivision of Pathology, The Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8550, Japan. kentaro.inamura@jfcr.or.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-6444-3861

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry is a widely available technique that is less challenging and can provide clinically meaningful results quickly and cost-efficiently in comparison with other techniques. In addition, immunohistochemistry allows for the evaluation of cellular localization of proteins in the context of tumor structure. In an era of precision medicine, pathologists are required to classify lung cancer into specific subtypes and assess biomarkers relevant to molecular-targeted therapies. This review summarizes the hot topics of immunohistochemistry in lung cancer, including (i) adenocarcinoma vs squamous cell carcinoma; (ii) neuroendocrine markers; (iii) ALK, ROS1, and EGFR; (iv) PD-L1 (CD274); (v) lung carcinoma vs malignant mesothelioma; and (vi) NUT carcinoma. Major pitfalls in evaluating immunohistochemical results are also described.

Indexed as

immune checkpointimmunostainingINSM1morphologynon-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC)pathologysmall cell lung carcinoma (SCLC)thoracic tumortyrosine kinaseWHO classification

Identifiers

PMID29538329
PMCPMC5876647

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.