| Title |
The diagnostic role of PTEN and ARID1A in serous effusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virchows Archiv, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00428-017-2273-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ben Davidson, Maurizio Pinamonti, Dolors Cuevas, Arild Holth, Pio Zeppa, Thomas Hager, Jeremias Wohlschlaeger, Martin Tötsch |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic role of PTEN and ARID1A in effusion cytology. Effusions (n = 279), consisting of 226 carcinomas (70 ovarian, 64 breast, 36 lung, and 15 uterine corpus carcinomas; 41 carcinomas of other origin) and 53 malignant mesotheliomas, were analyzed for PTEN and ARID1A expression using immunohistochemistry. PTEN was preserved in 166 (59%) tumors, partially lost in 38 (14%), and absent in 75 (27%), with lower expression in malignant mesotheliomas compared to carcinomas, though not significantly (p = 0.084). ARID1A was preserved in 243 (88%) tumors, partially lost in 18 (6%), and absent in 18 (6%). The majority of tumors with absent ARID1A were ovarian carcinomas, predominantly of clear cell or low-grade serous type. Reactive mesothelial cells in carcinoma specimens were uniformly positive for both proteins. ARID1A mutation analysis showed no mutations in eight analyzed specimens negative by immunohistochemistry. Loss of PTEN and ARID1A expression is highly specific for malignancy in effusion pathology. Loss of PTEN is not informative of organ of origin, whereas absence of ARID1A should raise suspicion of an ovarian primary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Engineering | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,484,498
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,282
of 1,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,482
of 438,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#17
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.