ArticleCureus2022
Accuracy of Classifying Lung Carcinoma Using Immunohistochemical Markers on Limited Biopsy Material: A Two-Center Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A critical appraisal of the clinico-radiological, histopathological and immunohistochemical profile of CT-guided and bronchoscopy-guided biopsies in lung lesions.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2025Article
- Primary Lung Adenocarcinoma Manifesting as Bilateral Reticulonodular Infiltrates: A Case Report.Case reports in pulmonology · 2025Article
- TTF-1 is a highly sensitive but not fully specific marker for pulmonary and thyroidal cancer: a tissue microarray study evaluating more than 17,000 tumors from 152 different tumor entities.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Unlocking Precise Lung Cancer Detection Through Minimal Panel Immunostaining in Small Biopsy Samples.Cureus · 2024Article
- Training immunophenotyping deep learning models with the same-section ground truth cell label derivation method improves virtual staining accuracy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Accurate classification of lung cancer into primary and metastatic carcinomas is critical for treatment approaches. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has always been pivotal in unveiling the diverse cell differentiation lineages present in lung cancer by using specific biomarkers such as TTF1 and p63/p40, which closely reflect the relationship between genotype and phenotype.. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate 57 Tru-Cut biopsies over two years, from 2020-2022. Tumour morphology was evaluated, and IHC for TTF-1, Napsin A, CK-7, P-63, P-40, and CD-56 was performed in two steps. Results Of the lung cancer cases, 58.5% were adenocarcinoma (ADC), 24.5% were squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 9.4% were small cell carcinoma, and 7.5% were poorly differentiated carcinoma. TTF1 stain had sensitivity and specificity of 78.9% and 50% in 33 cases of ADC, respectively, while CK7 and Napsin A had 100% sensitivity. P63 stain had 77% sensitivity and 50% specificity in 15 cases of SCC, while P-40 had 100% sensitivity. The CD56 stain was 100% sensitive in five cases of small cell carcinoma. Conclusion IHC staining on small lung biopsies allows accurate sub-classification of poorly differentiated lung cancers; however, there is still significant variability. Surgical resection specimens can be further classified due to architectural features that biopsies lack. Morphological findings would be beneficial in the development of an algorithm for sub-classifying lung carcinoma using a variety of markers.
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.