ArticleMedicine2026
The value of combined SATB2 and CDX2 detection in the differential diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Medicine, 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
This study evaluates the diagnostic value of SATB2 and CDX2, used individually and in combination, in the immunohistochemical differential diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. A retrospective case-control diagnostic accuracy study was conducted, including 122 patients with histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma or non-colorectal adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemical staining for SATB2 and CDX2 was performed on all cases, followed by semiquantitative interpretation. Using histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the diagnostic efficacy of each test index (SATB2 positive, CDX2 positive, either positive, and both positive) was calculated. SATB2 and CDX2 were highly expressed in colorectal adenocarcinoma (positive rates of 88.2% and 86.3%, respectively), which was significantly higher than in the control group (7.0% and 19.7%, P < .001). SATB2 used alone demonstrated the optimal diagnostic discrimination among single markers (AUC = 0.916, specificity 93.0%). Among the combined strategies, the "either positive" rule achieved the highest sensitivity (94.1%), whereas the "both positive" rule showed the highest specificity (98.6%) and overall discriminative ability (AUC = 0.938). PPV and NPV values were interpreted only within this case-control study population and should not be considered direct estimates of performance in populations with different disease prevalence. CDX2 showed the lowest specificity (60.0%) in differentiating gastric adenocarcinoma, whereas the "both positive" strategy maintained high diagnostic reliability across all differential scenarios. The sensitivity of both markers was significantly reduced in poorly differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma. SATB2 is an excellent single diagnostic marker. The combined application of SATB2 and CDX2 offers complementary advantages: "either positive" is suitable for exclusion diagnosis, while "both positive" is suitable for confirmation diagnosis. This combination is an effective tool for the differential diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma, although caution is needed when diagnosing poorly differentiated carcinomas.
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.