Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 387

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimized p53 immunohistochemistry is an accurate predictor of TP53 mutation in ovarian carcinoma

Open access
Köbel, Martin, Piskorz, Anna M, Lee, Sandra, Lui, Shuhong, LePage, Cecile, Marass, Francesco, Rosenfeld, Nitzan, Mes Masson, Anne‐Marie, Brenton, James D·2016·The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research

Abstract

TP53 mutations are ubiquitous in high‐grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC), and the presence of TP53 mutation discriminates between high and low‐grade serous carcinomas and is now an important biomarker for clinical trials targeting mutant p53. p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used as a surrogate for TP53 mutation but its accuracy has not been established. The objective of this study was to test whether improved methods for p53 IHC could reliably predict TP53 mutations independently identified by next generation sequencing (NGS). Four clinical p53 IHC assays and tagged‐amplicon NGS for TP53 were performed on 171 HGSOC and 80 endometrioid carcinomas (EC). p53 expression was scored as overexpression (OE), complete absence (CA), cytoplasmic (CY) or wild type (WT). p53 IHC was evaluated as a binary classifier where any abnormal staining predicted deleterious TP53 mutation and as a ternary classifier where OE, CA or WT staining predicted gain‐of‐function (GOF or nonsynonymous), loss‐of‐function (LOF including stopgain, indel, splicing) or no detectable TP53 mutations (NDM), respectively. Deleterious TP53 mutations were detected in 169/171 (99%) HGSOC and 7/80 (8.8%) EC. The overall accuracy for the best performing IHC assay for binary and ternary prediction was 0.94 and 0.91 respectively, which improved to 0.97 (sensitivity 0.96, specificity 1.00) and 0.95 after secondary analysis of discordant cases. The sensitivity for predicting LOF mutations was lower at 0.76 because p53 IHC detected mutant p53 protein in 13 HGSOC with LOF mutations. CY staining associated with LOF was seen in 4 (2.3%) of HGSOC. Optimized p53 IHC can approach 100% specificity for the presence of TP53 mutation and its high negative predictive value is clinically useful as it can exclude the possibility of a low‐grade serous tumour. 4.1% of HGSOC cases have detectable WT staining while harboring a TP53 LOF mutation, which limits sensitivity for binary prediction of mutation to 96%.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cjp2.53

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 387

Metadata

Authors
Köbel, M., Piskorz, A. M., Lee, S., Lui, S., LePage, C., Marass, F., Rosenfeld, N., Mes Masson, A., & Brenton, J. D.
Venue
The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-13
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
247-258
ISSN
2056-4538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2417320495
Cited by
387
References
8
FWCI
32.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.