ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Two Cases of Uterine Small-cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma With Somatostatin-receptor-type-2 (SSTR2) Expression and Minor Components of Endocervical Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: Uterine small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) is a highly malignant and aggressive neoplasm. When chemotherapy is necessary, a platinum-based regimen similar to that used for pulmonary SCNEC is recommended. We encountered two cases of uterine SCNEC expressing somatostatin receptor type 2 (SSTR2), both with minor components of endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECAC). This study aimed to clarify the histogenesis and progression of these carcinomas through detailed histopathological, immunohistochemical, and Case Report: In both cases, SCNEC components were diffusely positive for synaptophysin and SSTR2, whereas the ECAC components were negative for both markers. Both components were diffusely, block-type positive for p16, suggesting that they were primary cervical cancers of a common origin even if they differed in characteristics and phenotype. In one of the two cases, both SCNEC and ECAC components were diffusely positive for p53. Conclusion: These cases suggest that uterine SCNEC may coexist with, and in some cases arise from, ECAC. SSTR2 expression in uterine SCNEC may have prognostic and therapeutic significance, supporting consideration of somatostatin analogues and future SSTR2-targeted strategies. Because coexisting histological subtypes such as ECAC may persist after treatment directed at SCNEC, therapeutic planning should include careful pathological assessment and consideration of multimodal treatment.
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.