ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Neuroendocrine and squamous cell phenotypes of NUT carcinoma are potential diagnostic pitfalls that discriminating it from mimickers, such as small cell and squamous cell carcinoma.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mediastinal epithelial neoplasms with recurrent molecular alterations.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2026Review
- Primary pulmonary NUT carcinoma: pathological features, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis - An extended review.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
- Presenting Features and Causes of Diagnostic Delays: A Report From the NUT Carcinoma Registry.JCO precision oncology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNUT carcinoma is a rare cancer associated with a poor prognosis. Because of its rarity, its diagnosis is challenging and is usually made by excluding other diagnoses. Immunohistochemical analysis is a reliable technique that contributes to a correct diagnosis, but overestimating the expression of neuroendocrine (NE) markers may result in an incorrect diagnosis. In this study, we established the immunohistochemical phenotypes of NUT carcinoma compared with tumors that mimic its phenotype to identify potential diagnostic pitfalls.
methodsEight cases of NUT carcinoma were examined along with eight basaloid squamous cell carcinomas and thirteen cases of small cell carcinoma using an immunohistochemical panel consisting of various antibodies.
resultsOf the eight NUT carcinomas, three patients had a smoking history. All the cases examined for INSM1 were positive (6/6, 100%), although the staining was somewhat weak. Among the NE markers, synaptophysin was variably positive in two NUT carcinomas (2/6, 33%); however, all cases were negative for ASCL1, chromogranin A, and CD56. Moreover, the squamous cell markers, p40 and CK5/6, were weakly expressed in 4/6 (67%) and 3/6 (50%) of the NUT carcinomas, respectively.
conclusionsFor tumors with an ambiguous morphology, applying the neuroendocrine phenotype of NUT carcinoma may be misleading; particularly, when distinguishing it from small-cell carcinoma. Similarly, null or weak expression of squamous cell markers may be observed in NUT carcinoma, but this differs from squamous cell carcinoma, which consistently demonstrates strong positivity for squamous cell 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.