Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37079060›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[CUP syndrome-diagnostics from the perspective of pathology].

Chantal Pauli

Open access · hybridAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chantal PauliInstitut für Pathologie und Molekularpathologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz. chantal.pauli@usz.ch.
University Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

problemHistologic and immunohistologic workup of tumor material from metastases of a previously unknown primary tumor is important for identifying their origin, but is often insufficient for this purpose without clinical oncologic and radiologic evaluation. PROCEDURE: In the initial cancer of unknown primary (CUP) situation, histologic and immunohistochemical workup together with clinicoradiologic correlations contribute significantly to the identification of the primary tumor. There are now accepted guidelines to follow when there is an initial CUP situation. Molecular diagnostic tools can be used to investigate changes at the nucleic acid level, which can provide clues about the primary tumor, including potential targets for therapy. If, despite broad and interdisciplinary diagnostics, it is not possible to identify the primary tumor, the diagnosis is CUP syndrome. If a true CUP situation is present, it is important to assign the tumor to a tumor class or a specific therapy-sensitive subgroup as best as possible so that the best possible treatment can be given. However, for a final assignment to a primary tumor or a final classification as CUP, a comparison with medical oncological and imaging findings is indispensable.

conclusionWhen CUP is suspected, close interdisciplinary collaboration between pathology, medical oncology, and imaging is essential to achieve a viable classification as CUP or identification of a presumptive primary tumor, in the interest of providing the most specific and effective therapy for affected individuals.

Indexed as

Biological PhenomenaNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryDiagnostic ImagingHumansInterdisciplinary StudiesSyndromeCancer of unknown primaryImmunohistochemistryLineage differentiationMolecular diagnosticsNeoplasm metastasis

Identifiers

PMID37079060
PMCPMC10129915
OpenAlexW4366463819

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.