ArticleDiagnostic pathology2019
Does the addition of AMACR to CK20 help to diagnose challenging cases of urothelial carcinoma in situ?
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Roles of Immunohistochemical Markers CK20, CD44, AMACR, and p53 in Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Tissue Biomarkers in Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of concomitant carcinoma in situ distribution on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer progression risk.BJU international · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Challenges during Inflammation and Cancer: Current Biomarkers and Future Perspectives in Navigating through the Minefield of Reactive versus Dysplastic and Cancerous Lesions in the Digestive System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Scoring Systems for Immunohistochemistry in Urothelial Carcinoma.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic utility of a-methylacyl COA racemase in prostate cancer of the Iranian population.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2021Article
- CK20 versus AMACR and p53 immunostains in evaluation of Urothelial Carcinoma in Situ and Reactive Atypia.Diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS) in the bladder can be difficult to diagnose due to factors including procedural artifact, minimal tissue sampled, therapy-related changes, and various CIS growth patterns. Prior data has demonstrated an increase in alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase (AMACR) in urothelial CIS, but there is no information on its utility for diagnosing difficult cases. The aim of this investigation was to assess the expression of AMACR that was ordered on equivocal bladder cases during clinical practice.
methodsTransurethral resections of the bladder in which AMACR and CK20 were performed during diagnostic workup were identified and cases with a final diagnosis of CIS (n = 22) or non-neoplastic urothelium (n = 30) were selected. Additionally, cases in which a diagnosis of CIS was rendered without IHC (n = 20) were selected and tested for AMACR expression.
resultsSensitivity of AMACR for CIS diagnosed with IHC during clinical practice was 73% and specificity was 97%, while CK20 was 95% sensitive and 80% specific. Sensitivity of AMACR in CIS diagnosed without IHC was 100%. In all groups, AMACR had inconsistent intensity, compared to CK20 which had consistent, strong intensity.
conclusionsAMACR was usually positive in urothelial CIS and negative in non-neoplastic urothelium. However, it is important to note that AMACR was less sensitive in difficult cases, while CK20 was more sensitive with more consistent, strong staining compared to AMACR.
Indexed as
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.