ArticleCancer management and research2026
Distinguishing Second Primary Müllerian Cancer from Breast Cancer Recurrence: Immunohistochemical Pitfalls and a Proposed Diagnostic Algorithm: A Case Report and Literature Review.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinguishing a second primary Müllerian high‑grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) from metastatic breast cancer in survivors is a diagnostic challenge, especially when peritoneal carcinomatosis occurs without an adnexal mass. We report a 48‑year‑old woman with prior luminal B breast cancer who presented with liver and abdominal wall nodules. Initially misdiagnosed as breast cancer recurrence based on limited immunohistochemistry (IHC), she received 12 months of ineffective therapy. Repeat biopsy with an extended panel (PAX8+, WT1+, p53 mutant‑type, GATA3 weak/partial, GCDFP‑15-) established primary HGSC. A literature review of comparative IHC studies identifies key pitfalls: TRPS1 is positive in 40-47% of HGSCs in large cohorts, with some series reporting up to 70%; PAX8 with the MRQ50 clone is falsely positive in 40% of triple‑negative breast cancers (TNBC); and GATA3 shows weak/focal positivity in 6-13% of HGSCs. A proposed six‑marker panel (PAX8, WT1, GATA3, p53, GCDFP‑15, TRPS1) is recommended to prevent misdiagnosis and expedite appropriate platinum‑based therapy and cytoreductive surgery.
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.