ArticleClinical and experimental dermatology2024
Comparison of S100A8 and PRAME as biomarkers for distinguishing melanoma from melanocytic naevus: a case-control analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appropriate Statistical Methods to Assess Cross-study Diagnostic 23-Gene Expression Profile Test Performance for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms.The American Journal of dermatopathology · 2024Article
- Contribution of Keratinocytes in Skin Cancer Initiation and Progression.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundS100A8 is a melanoma biomarker expressed in the melanoma-associated epidermal keratinocytes, but its diagnostic utility has not been compared with other biomarkers, including PRAME.
objectivesTo compare the utility of S100A8 and PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the differential diagnosis of melanoma and naevi in a case-control study.
methodsA previously described cohort of 209 melanomas (case samples) and naevi (control samples) dual-immunostained for S100A8 and PRAME were included. For S100A8, previously reported scores indicating the proportion of tumour-associated epidermis stained (0 = indeterminate; 1 = 0-4%; 2 = 5-25%; 3 = 26-50%; 4 = 51-75%; 5 = > 75%) were utilized. PRAME IHC was reviewed by at least two reviewers and a consensus score assigned, with score indicating the proportion of tumour stained (0 = indeterminate; 1 = 0%; 2 = 1-50%; 3 = > 50%). A positive test was defined as > 50% staining.
resultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for S100A8 (0.833) and PRAME (0.874) were not significantly different from each other (P = 0.22). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 42.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 32.6-52.8%] and 98.2% (95% CI 93.6-99.8%) for S100A8, and 79.8% (95% CI 70.5-87.2%) and 87.3% (95% CI 79.6-92.9%) for PRAME, respectively. A combined test requiring both S100A8 and PRAME IHC positivity had a sensitivity of 39.4% (95% CI 29.7-49.7%) and specificity of 99.1% (95% CI 95.0-100.0%).
conclusionsS100A8 and PRAME have utility in the diagnostic workup of melanoma, with S100A8 being more specific and PRAME being more sensitive when using this threshold. Our findings suggest that these two immunohistochemical markers may favourably complement one another to improve the detection of melanoma.
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.