Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25646026›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2015

Better see to better agree: phosphohistone H3 increases interobserver agreement in mitotic count for meningioma grading and imposes new specific thresholds.

Eleonora Duregon, Adele Cassenti, Alessandra Pittaro, Laura Ventura, Rebecca Senetta, Roberta Rudà, Paola Cassoni

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eleonora DuregonDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Adele CassentiDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Alessandra PittaroDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Laura VenturaDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Rebecca SenettaDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Roberta RudàDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Paola CassoniDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy (A.C., A.P., R.S., P.C.); Department of Oncology, University of Torino at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy (E.D.); Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy (L.V.); Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy (R.R.).
Piedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention · ITUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMitotic count on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides is a crucial diagnostic criterion in meningioma grading. However, mitosis assessment on H&E slides can be impaired by technical factors and by pathologist's experience. Phosphohistone H3 (PHH3) serine-10 is a mitosis-specific antibody that has proven to facilitate mitotic count in various tumors.

methodsA series of 70 meningiomas (15 grade I, 40 grade II, 15 grade III) was used to validate PHH3 intra- and interobserver reproducibility and to identify PHH3-specific mitotic thresholds. Four pathologists with different experience in neuropathology counted mitoses on both H&E- and PHH3-stained slides.

resultsH&E and PHH3 mitotic rates were highly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.92, P < .0001). PHH3 mitotic counts had both a good mean interobserver correlation (R(m) = 0.83) and a good intraclass correlation (0.78), higher than H&E mitotic indices (R(m) = 0.77, intraclass correlation = 0.71). After further stratification of meningiomas according to World Health Organization grade, PHH3 performed better in terms of interobserver concordance (Kendall's W = 0.761) compared with H&E (Kendall's W = 0.697). Referring to the same meningioma groups identified by World Health Organization grade as the gold standard, the volume under the receiver operator characteristic surface was 0.91, indicating a very good diagnostic ability of PHH3 scores in discriminating the 3 meningioma groups. The 2 optimal PHH3-specific cutoff values were 6.61 and 22.02.

conclusionPHH3 staining is a useful diagnostic complementary tool to standard H&E mitotic count, optimizing intra- and interobserver reproducibility. PHH3-specific mitotic thresholds should be adopted to avoid overgrading of meningioma when ancillary methods are employed.

Indexed as

MitosisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodiesBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHistonesHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMeningiomaMiddle AgedMitotic IndexNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationAntibodiesBiomarkers, TumorHistonescutoffmeningiomamitotic countPHH3

Identifiers

PMID25646026
PMCPMC4482862
OpenAlexW2133869154

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.