Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39976022›Full record

ReviewCurrent medicinal chemistry2025

Dermal Melanocytes Detectability for Distinguishing

Lukasz Kuzbicki

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lukasz KuzbickiInstitute of Biology, Faculty of Biological and Veterinary Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, Toruń, 87-100, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6121-4465

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The melanoma incidence has been increasing over the past three decades, with a disproportionately high fraction of in situ tumors. The diagnosis of melanoma at its earliest stages can be challenging. The detectability of tumor melanocytes in the dermis is of key importance for distinguishing in situ from invasive melanomas. In this review, a total of 475 melanomas diagnosed as in situ tumors by hematoxylin and eosin staining were analyzed. This diagnosis was confirmed for 68% of cases, but 15% of in situ melanomas were reassessed as invasive lesions using immunohistochemistry. The cases were upstaged by Melan-A/Mart-1, S-100, and SOX-10 with frequencies of 14.6%, 11.7%, and 10.8%, respectively. Whereas, the diagnosis of in situ melanoma was confirmed by SOX-10, Melan-A/Mart-1, and S-100 in 81.4%, 63.8%, and 59.1% of cases, respectively. Moreover, the analysis of immunohistochemical detectability of melanocyte markers in different types of dermal cells was carried out for 574 various skin lesions. The stainings of S-100, SOX-10, MITF, and PRAME in fibroblasts and histiocytes, as well as Melan-A/Mart-1, HMB-45, and MITF in melanophages, were noted. The diagnosis of in situ melanoma based on hematoxylin and eosin staining is confirmed by immunohistochemistry in most cases. However, some in situ tumors become reassessed as invasive malignancies. Although none of the currently used melanocyte markers is absolutely specific, simultaneous analysis of nuclear SOX-10 and cytoplasmic Melan-A/Mart-1 stainings can support the diagnosis. However, immunohistochemistry remains an auxiliary tool, and the results should be analyzed in association with the cytomorphological features.

Indexed as

MelanocytesMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunohistochemistryBiomarkers, Tumordiagnosis.early invasive melanomahematoxylin and eosin stainingimmunohistochemistryIn situ melanomamelanocyte marker

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.