ReviewDermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Keratoacanthoma versus Squamous-Cell Carcinoma: Histopathological Features and Molecular Markers.
Review in Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- WHO classification of skin tumours: key updates in the fifth edition.Histopathology · 2026Review
- Palmar squamous cell carcinoma with lymph node involvement: a case report highlighting diagnostic challenges.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- And-1 coordinates with polymerase δ to regulate nucleotide excision repair and UVB-induced skin tumorigenesis.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Metastatic Head and Neck Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Clinico-Pathologic Features and Reconstructive Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Keratoacanthoma in a Patient With Skin of Color.Cureus · 2025Article
- Hypertrophic Lichen Planus and Hypertrophic Skin Lesions Associated with Histological Lichenoid Infiltrate: A Case Report and Literature Review.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considerable controversy exists within the field of dermatopathology in differentiating keratoacanthoma (KA) from squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC). KAs are rapidly growing, benign squamous tumors that are typically well differentiated. This controversy stems from the diverging perspectives on the management, classification, and diagnosis of each entity. Many believe that KAs are benign neoplasms in which intervention may be unnecessary since they are self-limiting and resolve on their own. On the other hand, SCC needs to be treated, as it carries significant morbidity and mortality risks. Early diagnosis and treatment are vital to prevent serious consequences of SCC. Nevertheless, KAs may resemble SCC grossly and microscopically. Various ancillary tests, including immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, have been proposed to differentiate between these entities, though mixed patterns of expression can limit the diagnostic utility of these techniques. Research into this topic is ongoing, with newer genetic and molecular findings illuminating the previously difficult-to-understand aspects of KA and increasing our understanding of this entity. In this review, KA and SCC will be compared along the lines of histological features, genetic, immune, and molecular markers, differential diagnosis, and management to clarify the similarities, differences, and misconceptions about both entities.
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.