Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The biological and clinical value of p53 expression in pelvic high‐grade serous carcinomas

Köbel, Martin, Reuss, Alexander, Bois, Andreas du, Kommoss, Stefan, Kommoss, Friedrich, Gao, Dongxia, Kalloger, Steve E, Huntsman, David G, Gilks, C Blake·2010·The Journal of Pathology

Abstract

Studies on the p53 expression and outcome for women with ovarian carcinoma have produced conflicting results. The observed heterogeneity may be due to the range of cut‐offs used to define overexpression and the mix of histotypes of the study cohorts. We aimed to examine the association between p53 expression and biological properties of tumours as well as outcome in 502 pelvic high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs) derived from two population‐based cohorts from British Columbia representing cases with or without residual tumour after initial surgery, respectively, and one clinical trial cohort from Germany (AGO‐OVAR‐3). p53 expression was assessed on tissue microarrays by immunohistochemistry using the DO‐7 antibody. p53 expression was scored in three tiers as complete loss of expression, focal expression or overexpression (defined as more than 50% positive tumour cell nuclei) and correlated with survival using multivariate Cox regression models. p53 was completely absent in 30.3%, focally expressed in 12.0%, and overexpressed in 57.7% of HGSCs, which was an inverse pattern compared to clear cell and endometrioid types of ovarian carcinomas, where 76% and 69% of cases showed focal expression, respectively (p < 0.001, chi square test). Pelvic HGSCs show either complete absence of p53 expression or p53 overexpression in 88% of cases; thus, aberrant p53 expression is a ubiquitous feature of HGSCs. HGSCs with p53 overexpression were associated with a reduced risk of recurrence compared to cases with complete absence of p53 in the British Columbia cohort with residual tumour (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–0.99) and for a combination of all three cohorts (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89) in multivariate analysis including age, stage, residual tumour, and stratification by cohort. The association of complete absence of p53 expression with unfavourable outcome suggests functional differences of TP53 mutations underlying overexpression, compared to those underlying complete absence of expression. Copyright © 2010 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/path.2744

Cites

3 of 3 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

Metadata

Authors
Köbel, M., Reuss, A., Bois, A. D., Kommoss, S., Kommoss, F., Gao, D., Kalloger, S. E., Huntsman, D. G., & Gilks, C. B.
Venue
The Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09
Volume
222
Issue
2
Pages
191-198
ISSN
  • 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9896
OpenAlex
W2161701941
Cited by
170
References
3
FWCI
15.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.