ArticlePituitary2025
The role of BRAF testing of Rathke's cleft cysts to identify missed papillary craniopharyngioma.
Article in Pituitary, 2025. 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.
- Papillary craniopharyngioma following an initial diagnosis of Rathke cleft cyst: a case report and narrative review.JCEM case reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Pharmacological Treatment for Adamantinomatous Craniopharyngioma.Current oncology reports · 2025Review
- The endocrine spectrum of Rathke cleft cysts.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe differential diagnosis of cystic sellar/suprasellar lesions includes craniopharyngioma (CP) and Rathke's cleft cyst (RCC). Histological differentiation between cystic papillary craniopharyngioma (pCP) and RCC using light microscopy alone is challenging. A major point of difference is that virtually all pCPs are clonal for the BRAF V600E variant, whereas RCCs are not. Noting that BRAF testing of RCCs is not current standard practice, we hypothesised that routinely performing BRAF studies in RCCs might uncover otherwise missed pCPs.
methodWe performed a retrospective cohort study of all RCCs operated on at Flinders Medical Centre, the Memorial and Royal Adelaide Hospitals, between 2001 and 2023. In cases with sufficient tissue, we performed BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (IHC) and BRAF next generation sequencing (NGS) of extracted tumour DNA.
resultsOf eleven patients with suitable operative specimens, one patient with an initial diagnosis of RCC was revised to pCP following BRAF testing with equivocal positivity on BRAF IHC and clear identification of the V600E variant on NGS. The patient's subsequent clinical course was aggressive and more compatible with pCP than RCC.
conclusionThis study highlights the potential value of BRAF testing in RCCs to identify missed pCP, which is an especially timely finding given the advent of primary medical therapy with BRAF inhibition for pCP. In the absence of guidelines advising on the use of BRAF studies in sellar lesions, we suggest consideration of BRAF testing of all RCCs, particularly if there is squamous metaplasia or disease recurrence.
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.