ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinicopathological features, risk model and prognosis of 115 cases of epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: A single-center study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features, diagnostic value, risk model and prognostic significance of epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) in a retrospective cohort of 115 cases. Methods: A total of 115 cases of EHE diagnosed in the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (NCC) from 2011 to 2023 were collected. The clinical and pathological features of EHE were reviewed by Fluorescence Results: The male to female ratio of 115 patients was 1.05:1. The age of the patients ranged from 8 to 84 years (median, 47 years; standard deviation (SD), 15.055), and tumor diameter ranged from 8 to 152 mm (median, 20 mm; SD, 29.156).Among them, there were 80 multiple cases, 69 cases of the patients underwent surgery. IHC showed that 92.2% of calmodulin-binding transcription activator 1 (CAMTA1) and 58.0% of transcription factor E3 (TFE3) were positively expressed. The positive rate of the WWTR1::CAMTA1 fusion gene was 86.7% and the positive rate of the TFE3 fracture gene was 13.6% (12/88). The difference test between FISH and IHC showed that the two detection methods have good consistency for CAMTA1 gene detection, while the consistency with TFE3 is poor. Univariate COX regression showed that radical surgical resection, tumor size (>5cm) and age (>50 years), multi-organ involvement, and OS were statistically significant (P<0.05). A proposed 3-tiered risk assessment system using these 5 parameters significantly stratified the patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups with significantly OS rates. Conclusion: The prognosis for EHE patients with tumor size more than 50 mm or age at diagnosis over 50 years old is unfavorable. In this investigation, we pioneered the development of a prognostic risk model, leveraging five key parameters to anticipate the outcomes for EHE patients.
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.