ReviewDiagnostic pathology2026
Sinonasal renal cell-like adenocarcinoma: a case report and literature review.
Review in Diagnostic pathology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSinonasal renal cell-like adenocarcinoma (SNRCLA) is a rare sinonasal carcinoma that is easily misdiagnosed. We aimed to reveal clinical clinicopathological features, molecular genetic characteristics, treatment and prognosis of SNRCLA.
methodsThe pathological diagnosis and differential diagnosis of a case of SNRCLA and the literature was reviewed.
resultsImmunohistochemical analysis demonstrated positive expression of cytokeratin (CK)7, Sox-10, and carbonic anhydrase (CA)-IX, while negative expression was observed for CK20, CDX-2, Villin, Thyroid transcription factor(TTF)-1, Dog-1, Epstein–Barr virus viral capsid antigen (EBV-VCA), CD10,Renal cell carcinoma marker(RCC Ma), paired box(PAX)8, calponin, p63,and S-100. The positive proportion of Ki67 is less than 5%, and periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining confirmed glycogen content in the tumor cells. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein was overexpressed, but the EGFR gene was not mutated. The ETV6 gene was analyzed using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technology, but no rearrangement was detected. These mutations were detected using next-generation sequencing (NGS), including BRAF NM_004333:exon11 c.1357 C > G p.P453A, NM_000314:exon1 c.70_75del p.D24_L25del, MTOR NM_004958:exon39 c.5417 A > G p.H1806R, and PIK3CA NM_006218:exon5 c.1031T > G p.V344G. Following surgery and radiotherapy, no clinical or radiological evidence of recurrence or metastasis was observed during a follow-up period of 76 months.
conclusionIt is beneficial for diagnosis of SRCLC that clinical history, morphological characteristics and immunohistochemistry are combined. It is an indolent tumor, the potential for local recurrence requires individualized management and post-treatment surveillance. Meanwhile, It warrants further examination in molecular genetic characteristics.
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.