ReviewJournal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
Diagnostic reliability of c-KIT (CD117) in salivary gland tumours - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathology Seen in Myenteric Plexus in Two Subjects With Waardenburg Syndrome.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- "Hard palate adenoid cystic carcinoma: surgical resection, radiotherapeutic strategy, and long-term surveillance".Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Reticular and Myxoid Variant of EBV-positive Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Mimicking Salivary Gland Tumors: A Case Series.Head and neck pathology · 2025Article
- Utility of Proliferation Markers Ki-67 and PHH3 in Predicting Malignancy in Basaloid Salivary Gland Neoplasms: A Study Using Digital Image Analysis of Cytology Cell Blocks.Diagnostic cytopathology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
c-KIT is an important diagnostic marker in salivary gland tumours and is expressed in most adenoid cystic carcinomas. Histologically similar salivary gland tumours with variable immunohistochemical expression for c-KIT pose a challenge and make diagnostic reliability ambivalent. An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE by PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Trip, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE up to 31 December 2023, without period restriction. The articles that investigated CD117 or c-KIT in salivary gland tumours were included for review. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of c-KIT immunohistochemical expressions were derived and subjected to meta-analysis using Open Meta analyst for Sierra software. The risk of bias in selected studies was analysed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and RevMan 5.4 was used to output the result. Forty-three articles were reviewed, and 2285 salivary gland cases were analysed. Adenoid cystic carcinoma had an overall expression of 84.9%. A similar expression was found in epimyoepithelial carcinoma (79.1%), lymphoepithelial carcinoma (75%), myoepithelial carcinoma (60.8%), monomorphic adenoma (94.1%), and pleomorphic adenoma (74.7%). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of c-KIT/CD117 for adenoid cystic carcinoma with other salivary gland tumours were 84.99%, 69.09%, 84.79%, and 69.41%, respectively. Current evidence shows that c-KIT, despite its sensitivity, is not specific and therefore cannot be a useful diagnostic marker for distinguishing adenoid cystic carcinoma from other salivary gland tumours. Further research on other salivary gland tumours that exhibit comparable expression is necessary to validate the diagnostic accuracy of c-KIT.
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.