Head and neck pathology · 2022
Diagnostic Reliability of CRTC1/3::MAML2 Gene Fusion Transcripts in Discriminating Histologically Similar Intraosseous Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma from Glandular Odontogenic Cyst: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keerthika R, Devi Anju, Kamboj Mala, Sivakumar N, Vijayakumar Gopikrishnan, Narwal Anjali, Girdhar Akhil
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intraosseous mucoepidermoid carcinoma (IMEC) and Glandular odontogenic cyst (GOC) are those two pathological entities causing diagnostic dilemma due to the histopathological similarity. An accurate distinction between the two entities is difficult as both presents with a common radiological and histological similarities. The aim of our systematic review was to establish the diagnostic reliability of CRTC1/3::MAML2 gene fusion for the distinction between IMEC and GOC.
METHODS: A complete electronic literature search was made in MEDLINE by PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases. Articles with keywords using molecular genetic findings of CRTC1/3::MAML2 gene fusion transcripts, IMEC and GOC were assessed and included for the systematic review.
RESULTS: Twelve subgroups having both qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed CRTC1/3::MAML2 sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 70.59% in differentiating GOC and IMEC. Fixed-effects model confirmed translocation-negative cases to have a decreased risk of association with IMEC (combined odds ratio 8.770, 95% confidence interval - 2.45 to 31.45, p < 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports that in all cases with positive gene fusion transcript of the CRTC1/3::MAML2 was specific for IMEC and was significantly differentiating it from GOC. Whereas cases of IMEC with negative gene fusion transcript pose diagnostic difficulty in differentiating from a GOC which is negative for CRTC1/3::MAML2 expression.
METHODS: A complete electronic literature search was made in MEDLINE by PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases. Articles with keywords using molecular genetic findings of CRTC1/3::MAML2 gene fusion transcripts, IMEC and GOC were assessed and included for the systematic review.
RESULTS: Twelve subgroups having both qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed CRTC1/3::MAML2 sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 70.59% in differentiating GOC and IMEC. Fixed-effects model confirmed translocation-negative cases to have a decreased risk of association with IMEC (combined odds ratio 8.770, 95% confidence interval - 2.45 to 31.45, p < 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports that in all cases with positive gene fusion transcript of the CRTC1/3::MAML2 was specific for IMEC and was significantly differentiating it from GOC. Whereas cases of IMEC with negative gene fusion transcript pose diagnostic difficulty in differentiating from a GOC which is negative for CRTC1/3::MAML2 expression.