ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Proposed diagnostic and prognostic markers of primary malignant hepatic vascular neoplasms.
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 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.
- Mesenchymal Tumors of the Liver: An Update Review.Biomedicines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrimary malignant hepatic vascular tumors with various malignant potentials include epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) and angiosarcoma (AS), which may overlap pathologically. This study aimed to compare the pathological findings of hepatic EHE with those of AS, in association with patient outcomes.
methodsFifty-nine histologically confirmed patients with 34 EHE and 25 AS were admitted to a tertiary hospital from 2003 to 2020. Their EHE and AS pathological features were compared. Immunohistochemistry for CD31, ERG, CAMTA-1, TFE3, P53, and Ki-67 labeling was performed on paraffin-embedded blocks. Markers, along with histological findings, were analyzed for the purposes of diagnostic and prognostic significance by multivariate analysis.
resultsCAMTA-1 was 91.2% positive in EHE, but negative in AS (p = < 0.001). AS was significantly correlated to an aberrant p53 expression, high Ki-67 labeling, and high mitotic activity, compared to EHE (all, p = < 0.001). EHE can be classified as low grade (LG) and high grade (HG) using the prognostic values of mitotic activity and ki-67 labeling (sensitivity = 1, specificity = 1). Low grade-EHE showed significantly better overall survival than high grade-EHE (p = 0.020).
conclusionsImmunohistochemistry for CAMTA-1, P53, and Ki-67 labeling may help distinguish EHE and AS in histologically ambiguous cases, especially small biopsied tissue. Moreover, the combination of mitotic activity and Ki-67 labeling can be a prognostic factor for EHE with various clinical features.
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.