ArticleCytoJournal2024
Utility of immunocytochemistry in diagnosing abdominopelvic washings from patients undergoing radical surgery for endometrial cancer.
Article in CytoJournal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the efficacy of immunocytochemistry in diagnosing abdominopelvic washings (APWs) and evaluate the superiority of cytology combined with immunocytochemistry over cytology alone. Material and Methods: Data on APW cytology and available cell blocks from patients who underwent radical surgery for endometrial cancer between January 2021 and December 2022 were reviewed. Cytology was re-evaluated according to a five-tier system. Immunocytochemistry analysis for targets such as Sry box transcription factor 1(SOX17), Paired box gene 2 (Pax-2) protein, Phosphatase and tensin (PTEN), and β-catenin was performed on each case with non-negative cytology. Mismatch repair (MMR) protein and P53 immunocytochemistry analyses were performed using cell blocks from cases with abnormal MMR or P53 expression in their primary lesion. The accuracies of cytology combined with immunocytochemistry and cytology alone were calculated. Results: Overall, 126 patients were included in this study, 18 of whom demonstrated non-negative cytology of APW. Cell blocks were successfully prepared for 16 cases. SOX17 positivity was observed in 16 cases, including 1 of serous carcinoma, 1 of clear cell carcinoma, and 14 of endometrioid carcinoma (EC). Loss of Pax-2 and PTEN expression was observed in the APWs of the 14 patients with EC. MMR deficiency was noted in two patients with EC, and P53 mutation was noted in another two patients with EC. Compared with 10 metastatic carcinomas (10/18, 55.56%) diagnosed by cytology alone, 15 malignant APWs (15/18, 83.33%) were confirmed through combination cytology and immunocytochemistry. APWs were more likely to be observed in cases with more than half myometrial invasion than those with no or less than half myometrial invasion ( Conclusion: SOX17 is a useful Müllerian marker for distinguishing endometrial epithelium in APW. Loss of Pax-2 and PTEN expression offers evidence of metastatic endometrial carcinoma. Furthermore, positive APWs retained molecular features similar to primary lesions. The use of multiple immunocytochemical markers can effectively enhance the diagnostic efficiency of APWs.
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.