ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
BRAF
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gold standard for diagnosing canine urothelial carcinoma (CaUC) is histopathological examination of an incisional/excisional biopsy which is an invasive technique. The risk of tumor seeding by performing invasive techniques in CaUC is known for reason to explore minimally invasive diagnostic tools. Recently, accurate urine-based screening tests, particularly for BRAFV595E detection, have emerged with promising utility. In addition, uroplakin (UPII) is a specific urothelial cell marker for immunohistochemistry (IHC) that is widely used in humans and considered superior to uroplakin III (UPIII) particularly in higher diagnostic sensitivity of poorly differentiated or metastatic carcinoma; however, its expression in CaUC has not been evaluated. This retrospective study aimed to assess UPII and Ki-67 expression in 20 CaUCs (19 urinary bladder and 1 prostate gland) using special stain and IHC. Glycoprotein accumulation in neoplastic urothelial cells was also evaluated using periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) staining to confirm the location of uroplakin plaques. Tumor proliferation was evaluated using the Ki-67 score by IHC. Additionally, BRAFV595E detection by real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was investigated in three specimen types: urinary cell pellet (UCP), fresh tumor tissue (FT), and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE), and the suitability of these for CaUC screening was compared in 23 CaUCs and 34 controls.Overall, BRAFV595E was detected in 47.8% (11/23) of CaUCs and 2.9% (1/34) of controls. UCP and FT showed consistent BRAF genotypes (k = 0.865, p < 0.001), and heterozygous BRAF mutations were confirmed by chromatogram analysis. UPII was expressed in all CaUCs (100%, 20/20). PAS staining was positive in 86.7% of CaUC cases (13/15). Ki-67 score was not related to histological grade. No association was observed between histological grade, BRAF variant, Ki-67, and UPII expression. In conclusion, qPCR is a promising tool for BRAFV595E detection, and combined IHC for UPII with PAS staining may enhance diagnostic accuracy for CaUC.
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.