ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
MNDA expression and its value in differential diagnosis of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a comprehensive analysis of a large series of 1293 cases.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Expert consensus on the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of indolent B-cell lymphomas in China (2025)].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2025Article
- The dual roles of human PYHIN family proteins in cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMNDA (myeloid nuclear differentiation antigen) has been considered as a potential diagnostic marker for marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), but its utility in distinguishing MZL from other B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHLs) and its clinicopathologic relevance in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are ambiguous. We comprehensively investigated MNDA expression in a large series of B-NHLs and evaluated its diagnostic value.
methodsMNDA expression in a cohort of 1293 cases of B-NHLs and 338 cases of reactive lymphoid hyperplasia (RLH) was determined using immunohistochemistry and compared among different types of B-NHL. The clinicopathologic relevance of MNDA in DLBCL was investigated.
resultsMNDA was highly expressed in MZLs (437/663, 65.9%), compared with the confined staining in marginal zone B-cells in RLH; whereas neoplastic cells with plasmacytic differentiation lost MNDA expression. MNDA expression was significantly higher in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL, 79.6%, p = 0.006), whereas lower in chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL, 44.8%, p = 0.001) and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL, 25%, p = 0.016), and dramatically lower in follicular lymphoma (FL, 5.2%, p < 0.001), compared with MZL. 29.6% (63/213) of DLBCLs were positive for MNDA. The cases in non-GCB group exhibited a higher rate of MNDA positivity (39.8%) compared to those in GCB group (16.3%) (p < 0.001), and MNDA staining was more frequently observed in DLBCLs with BCL2/MYC double-expression (50%) than those without BCL2/MYC double-expression (24.8%) (p = 0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between MNDA and CD5 expression in DLBCL (p = 0.036).
conclusionsMNDA was highly expressed in MZL with a potential utility in differential diagnosis between MZL and RLH as well as FL, whereas its value in distinguishing MZL from MCL, CLL/SLL is limited. In addition, MNDA expression in DLBCL was more frequently seen in the non-GCB group and the BCL2/MYC double-expression group, and demonstrated a correlation with CD5, which deserves further investigation. The clinical relevance of MNDA and its correlation with the prognosis of these lymphomas also warrant to be fully elucidated.
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.