Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35752743›Full record

Trial reportModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

p53 immunohistochemistry in endometrial cancer: clinical and molecular correlates in the PORTEC-3 trial.

Lisa Vermij, Alicia Léon-Castillo, Naveena Singh, Melanie E Powell, Richard J Edmondson, Catherine Genestie, Pearly Khaw, Jan Pyman, C Meg McLachlin, Prafull Ghatage and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
24.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Phase II Study of Fulvestrant plus Abemaciclib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Lisa VermijDepartments of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4687-5550
Alicia Léon-CastilloDepartments of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Naveena SinghDepartments of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1782-1967
Melanie E PowellClinical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Richard J EdmondsonDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Catherine GenestieDepartments of Pathology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Pearly KhawDivision of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jan PymanDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
C Meg McLachlinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Prafull GhatageDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2371-0844
Stephanie M de BoerRadiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hans W NijmanDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Vincent T H B M SmitDepartments of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Emma J CrosbieDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630
Alexandra LearyMedical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Carien L CreutzbergRadiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7008-4321
Nanda HorewegRadiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tjalling BosseDepartments of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. T.Bosse@lumc.nl.
TransPORTEC consortium
Leiden University Medical Center · NLBarts Health NHS Trust · GBInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Manchester · GBPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUWestern University · CA

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27963Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard molecular classification of endometrial cancers (EC) is now endorsed by the WHO and identifies p53-abnormal (p53abn) EC as the subgroup with the poorest prognosis and the most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. P53abn EC are POLE wildtype, mismatch repair proficient and show abnormal immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for p53. Correct interpretation of routinely performed p53 IHC has therefore become of paramount importance. We aimed to comprehensively investigate abnormal p53 IHC patterns and their relation to clinicopathological and molecular features. Tumor material of 411 molecularly classified high-risk EC from consenting patients from the PORTEC-3 clinical trial were collected. p53 IHC was successful in 408 EC and was considered abnormal when the tumor showed a mutant expression pattern (including subclonal): overexpression, null or cytoplasmic. The presence of pathogenic mutations was determined by next generation sequencing (NGS). Abnormal p53 expression was observed in 131/408 (32%) tumors. The most common abnormal p53 IHC pattern was overexpression (n = 89, 68%), followed by null (n = 12, 9%) and cytoplasmic (n = 3, 2%). Subclonal abnormal p53 staining was observed in 27 cases (21%), which was frequently but not exclusively, associated with POLE mutations and/or MMRd (n = 22/27; p < 0.001). Agreement between p53 IHC and TP53 NGS was observed in 90.7%, resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 83.6% and 94.3%, respectively. Excluding POLEmut and MMRd EC, as per the WHO-endorsed algorithm, increased the accuracy to 94.5% with sensitivity and specificity of 95.0% and 94.1%, respectively. Our data shows that awareness of the abnormal p53 IHC patterns are prerequisites for correct EC molecular classification. Subclonal abnormal p53 expression is a strong indicator for POLEmut and/or MMRd EC. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed among the abnormal p53 IHC patterns. Our data support use of the WHO-endorsed algorithm and combining the different abnormal p53 IHC patterns into one diagnostic entity (p53abn EC).

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsTumor Suppressor Protein p53DNA Mismatch RepairFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMutationTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID35752743
PMCPMC7613653
OpenAlexW4283520680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.