ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
Mesothelioma: morphologic and immunohistochemical findings.
Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pleural mesothelioma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews some basic and some new concepts in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. The term "malignant mesothelioma" is no longer recommended; rather, any tumor labeled "mesothelioma" is presumed to be malignant. Clinical and radiologic information is very useful in the diagnosis of mesothelioma; in particular, nodular pleural thickening on CT is usually a marker of malignancy. The literature on markers that separate mesotheliomas from metastatic carcinomas has become very complex and frequently misleading, with many recommended markers actually demonstrating poor specificity. However, newer data show that a combination of HEG1 (clone SKM9-2) and claudin‑4 staining provides extremely high accuracy in separating epithelioid mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung carcinomas with just two immunostains. This combination works at other sites as well, but caution should be used when high-grade serous carcinoma is in the differential, because all "mesothelioma" markers can also stain high-grade serous carcinomas. There are, unfortunately, no sensitive or specific markers for sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. A variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) markers are useful in separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations; immunohistochemal staining for BAP1, MTAP (or CDKN2A FISH), and NF2/Merlin (or NF2 FISH) will enable the diagnosis of most mesotheliomas. Mesothelioma in situ is now recognized as either a single layer of bland cuboidal mesothelial cells that have lost BAP1, and sometimes MTAP, on immunohistochemical staining, or a process that is morphologically identical to a well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor that has lost BAP1/MTAP. Mesothelioma in situ probably always progresses to invasive mesothelioma, but this process is often quite slow.
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.