Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585408›Full record

ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Molecular testing in mesenchymal neoplasms: What, when, and how to test? : A review with a special focus on the value of next-generation immunochemistry as a substitute for molecular testing].

Abbas Agaimy

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Abbas AgaimyPathologisches Institut, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Deutschland. abbas.agaimy@uk-erlangen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the widespread use of diverse modern molecular testing tools, the last two decades have seen significant advances in the classification of soft tissue neoplasms. Specifically, numerous molecularly defined new entities have been introduced and many established older entities have received more insightful molecular studies that have developed their classification further. The discrepant therapeutic and prognostic implications of this evolving complexity of the nosology of neoplastic diseases make the precise subtyping of soft tissue neoplasms unavoidable. However, these rapid developments of the modern diagnostic molecular pathology did not only offer efficient solutions to many complex classification issues, but they were accompanied by similarly complex and diverse emerging problems. Most importantly, these advances have not only challenged the historical dogma of some phenotypes that were once considered specific, but they also have questioned the value of diagnostic immunohistochemistry compared to emerging modern diagnostic molecular tools. Moreover, the central question of when to test, what to test, and how to test became more confusing. This review addresses the major molecular categories in soft tissue neoplasms, their characteristics, and the criteria to be used for selecting the most appropriate molecular diagnostic tool to be used in individual cases with a special focus on the value of next generation immunohistochemistry as a substitute for molecular testing.

Indexed as

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunochemistryImmunohistochemistryPathology, MolecularSarcomaSoft Tissue NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorClassificationHigh-precision medicineSarcomaTargeted RNA sequencing, NGSTargeted therapy

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.