SynthesisReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2025
The differential diagnosis of adrenocortical tumors: systematic review of Ki-67 and IGF2 and meta-analysis of Ki-67.
Synthesis in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-depth Genetic and Molecular Characterization of Unilateral Coexisting Adrenal Cortical Adenoma and Carcinoma in the Context of MEN1 Syndrome.Endocrine pathology · 2026Article
- Case Report: Hypervascular lipid-rich intrahepatic adrenocortical adenoma in the right posterior liver: a diagnostic challenge for hepatobiliary surgeons.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Tumor stage-dependent expression of autophagy proteins in adrenocortical carcinoma.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Androgen-Secreting Adrenal Adenoma in a Postmenopausal Woman as a Cause of Hirsutism.JCEM case reports · 2025Article
- Adrenocortical Carcinoma With 2 Distinct Syndromes From Secretion of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 2 and Steroid Hormones.JCEM case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Distinguishing benign from malignant adrenocortical tumors (ACT) is not always easy, particularly for tumors with unclear malignant potential based on the histopathological features comprised of the Weiss score. Previous studies reported the potential utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers to recognize malignancy, in particular the Insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2) and the proliferation marker, Ki-67. However, this information was not compiled before. Therefore, this review aimed to collect the evidence on the potential diagnosis utility of IGF2 and Ki-67 IHC staining. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed to assess the Ki-67 accuracy to identify adrenocortical carcinoma. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. From the 26 articles included in the systematic review, 21 articles provided individual data for IGF2 (n = 2) or for Ki-67 (n = 19), while 5 studies assessed both markers. IGF2 staining was positive in most carcinomas, in contrast to adenomas. However, the different immunostaining evaluation methods adopted among the studies impeded to perform a meta-analysis to assess IGF2 diagnostic accuracy. In contrast, for the most commonly used cut-off value of 5% stained cells, Ki-67 showed pooled specificity, sensitivity and log diagnostic odds ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.99), 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and 4.26 (95% CI 3.40 to 5.12), respectively. At the 5% cut-off, Ki-67 demonstrated an excellent specificity to recognize malignant ACT. However. the moderate sensitivity observed indicates the need for further studies exploring alternative threshold values. Additionally, more studies using similar approaches are needed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of IGF2.Registration code in PROSPERO: CRD42022370389.
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.