ArticlePloS one2025
MALDI imaging mass spectrometry differentiates basal cell carcinoma from trichoblastoma and trichoepithelioma: A proof of principle study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBasal cell carcinoma (BCC) comprises a large portion of dermatopathology specimens; however, benign mimics such as trichoblastoma/trichoepithelioma (TB/TE) place accurate diagnosis at risk and consequently lead to inappropriate clinical management and overuse of healthcare resources. This study aims to address the challenges of traditional histopathological evaluation by utilizing matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization imaging mass spectrometry (MALDI IMS). METHODS AND
findingsFormalin-fixed paraffin-embedded BCC and TB/TE tissue blocks were taken from archival tissue. A cohort of 69 BCC and TB/TE specimens were identified, each having three concordant diagnoses given by Dermatopathologists after a blinded analysis. H&E stained sections of each specimen were imaged for pathological analysis and uploaded to a digital annotation software with the following classifications: BCC, TB, TE, BCC stroma, TB stroma, and TE stroma. Mass spectra were collected from unstained serial sections guided by the areas annotated by the Dermatopathologists on the H&E stained serial sections. Before informatics, the data from the cohort were divided randomly into a training set (n = 55) and a validation set (n = 14). Prediction models were developed using a support vector machine (SVM) classification model from the training set data. The platform predicted BCC and TB/TE in model 2 (tumor nests alone) with a sensitivity of 98.9% (95% CI 98.3-99.4%) and specificity of 88.4% (95% CI 78.4-94.5%) at the spectral level in the validation set. Model 1 (stroma alone) had a sensitivity of 46.1% (95% CI 43.0-49.1%) and specificity of 99.2% (95% CI 97.1-99.9%). A combined model 3 (tumor nests and stroma) had a sensitivity of 90.26% (95% CI 89.1%-91.3%) and a specificity of 97.1% (95% CI 94.6% to 98.7%). The limitations of this study included a small sample set, which included easily identifiable cases obtained from a single tissue source.
conclusionsOur study proves that BCC and TB/TE exhibit different proteomic profiles that one can use to enable accurate differential diagnosis. While our findings are not yet validated for clinical use, this merits further research to support IMS as an ancillary diagnostic tool for adequately and efficiently identifying the most common cutaneous malignancy in the United States. We recommend that future studies obtain a more extensive set of histologically challenging cases from multiple institutions and adequate clinical follow-up to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
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.