ArticleScientific reports2024
PRAME expression in fibrosarcomatous dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Adequate Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management Practices in Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans.Sage open pediatricsArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) was first identified as a malignant melanoma-specific antigen. Recently, a few cases of fibrosarcomatous dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (FS-DFSP) were shown to have positivity for PRAME, while conventional dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (C-DFSP) was negative. Because PRAME may be of diagnostic utility in FS-DFSP and is raising expectations as a new immunotherapy target, we examined the positivity of PRAME in FS-DFSP. Twenty-one cases of FS-DFSP and age/sex/location-matched cases of C-DFSP as a control group were examined by immunohistochemistry for CD34 and PRAME. The results were then evaluated by H-score, which was objectively and semi-quantitatively calculated using the open-source bioimaging analysis software QuPath. The results revealed that the PRAME H-score in FS-DFSP was significantly higher than that in C-DFSP (p = 0.0137). As for CD34, the H-score in FS-DFSP was significantly lower than that in C-DFSP (p < 0.001). Using these two immunohistochemical analyses in combination, the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of FS-DFSP were 86% and 90%, respectively. Double staining of CD34 and PRAME revealed that PRAME-positive and CD34-positive areas did not overlap. This is the largest study to examine PRAME expression in FS-DFSP, and it confirmed the usefulness of PRAME in diagnosing this condition.
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.