ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Cutaneous melanocytic tumor with CRTC1::TRIM11 fusion: a case report.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutaneous melanocytic tumor with CRTC1::TRIM11 fusion in an adolescent: A case report and focused literature review of reported pediatric cases.JAAD case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Dermoscopic Features of a CRTC1::TRIM11 Cutaneous Tumour: A Case Report and Literature Review.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- A Case of a CRTC1::TRIM11 Cutaneous Tumor With Venous and Lymphatic Invasion and Lymph Node Metastasis.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCutaneous Melanocytic Tumor with CRTC1::TRIM11 Fusion (CMTCT) represents a novel and rare entity in the realm of dermatological oncology, characterized by distinct melanocytic differentiation. This particular tumor type has yet to be officially recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO). CMTCT is generally perceived as a tumor with a relatively indolent nature; however, it is not devoid of metastatic potential. Therefore, ensuring complete surgical excision of the tumor, coupled with rigorous long-term follow-up, is paramount for patient management. In this context, we report the case of an 18-year-old female patient who presented with a dull red nodule on her left leg. Initial surgical intervention led to a pathological diagnosis of CMTCT, but it was determined that the tumor had not been fully excised. Consequently, a second surgical procedure was undertaken to achieve complete removal of the tumor. During a follow-up period of six months post-surgery, the patient showed no signs of local recurrence or metastasis, indicating a successful outcome. CASE PRESENTATION: An 18-year-old female patient noticed a dull red nodule on her left leg three years ago, which exhibited slow growth over time. She underwent a subcutaneous tumor resection. Histological examination under high-power magnification revealed that the neoplasm consisted of epithelioid cells arranged in nests, fascicles, bundles, or sheets. The tumor cells had round or ovoid nuclei with prominent nucleoli and visible mitotic figures. Notably, areas resembling nevus cell clusters were observed. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed melanocytic differentiation. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) identified a CRTC1::TRIM11 fusion, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for CRTC1 confirmed rearrangement. Consequently, a diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic tumor with CRTC1::TRIM11 fusion was established.
conclusionsCMTCT is a rare tumor characterized by melanocytic differentiation. In this case, the tumor predominantly comprised epithelioid cells with localized nevus cell clusters. The expression of melanocyte markers could easily lead to a misdiagnosis as cutaneous melanoma. However, several distinguishing features were noted: the tumor was not connected to the epidermis, exhibited low cellular heterogeneity and proliferation index, and showed minimal cellular atypia. Additionally, tests for EWSR1 rearrangement (FISH) and BRAF V600E mutation (PCR-ARMS) were negative.This case underscores the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach when clinical, microscopic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings do not align. The presence of nevus cell clusters morphology in the tumor cells enhances our understanding of this disease's histological spectrum and aids in avoiding misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis.
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.