SynthesisHead and neck pathology2026
Clinical Utility of Molecular Testing in Ameloblastoma: A Systematic Review with Functional Meta-synthesis and Exploratory Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Head and neck 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review with functional meta-synthesis and exploratory meta-analysis evaluated the clinical utility of molecular testing in ameloblastoma, focusing on diagnostic, genotype-phenotype, prognostic, liquid-biopsy, and precision-therapy implications.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Eligible studies were full original articles evaluating direct molecular or molecularly interpretable testing in human ameloblastoma. Data were synthesized using functional meta-synthesis. Exploratory random-effects meta-analyses were performed when sufficient study-level data were available.
resultsTwenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Molecular testing was most consistently informative for defining the molecular landscape and supporting diagnosis. BRAF V600E was the dominant alteration across the evidence base, but additional alterations in SMO, FGFR2, RAS-family genes, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, EGFR, and ROS1 were reported, particularly in selected or BRAF-wild-type tumors. Exploratory meta-analysis of 19 studies showed a pooled BRAF V600E prevalence of 69.1% (95% CI: 62.1%-75.3%; I2 = 80.3%). Four studies provided complete site-specific data, showing strong enrichment of BRAF V600E in mandibular versus maxillary tumors (OR = 20.13; 95% CI: 7.65-52.95; I2 = 0.0%). BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry showed high exploratory pooled sensitivity (96.6%; 95% CI: 84.1%-99.4%) and specificity (89.8%; 95% CI: 71.5%-96.8%) when compared with molecular reference methods. Prognostic evidence was inconsistent: BRAF V600E was not a reliable stand-alone recurrence marker, although VEGF mRNA and broader molecular profiles may have prognostic relevance. Plasma cfDNA testing did not reliably detect tissue-positive BRAF V600E. Targeted therapy evidence suggested radiologic response and organ-preservation potential in selected BRAF V600E-mutated tumors, but remained limited to non-randomized series.
conclusionsMolecular testing provides clinically relevant diagnostic and genotype-phenotype information in ameloblastoma and may guide targeted therapy in selected cases. Prognostic and liquid-biopsy applications remain insufficiently validated.
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.