ArticleDiagnostic pathology2023
A comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis of IMP2 and IMP3 in 542 cases of ovarian tumors.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- IMPlications of IMP2 in RNA Biology and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIMP2 and IMP3 are mRNA binding proteins involved in carcinogenesis. We examined a large cohort of ovarian tumors with the aim to assess the value of IMP2 and IMP3 for differential diagnosis, and to assess their prognostic significance.
methodsImmunohistochemical analyses with antibodies against IMP2 and IMP3 were performed on 554 primary ovarian tumors including 114 high grade serous carcinomas, 100 low grade serous carcinomas, 124 clear cell carcinomas, 54 endometrioid carcinomas, 34 mucinous carcinomas, 75 mucinous borderline tumors, and 41 serous borderline tumors (micropapillary variant). The associations of overall positivity with clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated using the chi-squared test or Fisher's Exact test.
resultsWe found IMP2 expression (in more than 5% of tumor cells) in nearly all cases of all tumor types, so the prognostic meaning could not be analyzed. The positive IMP3 expression (in more than 5% of tumor cells) was most common in mucinous carcinomas (82%) and mucinous borderline tumors (81%), followed by high grade serous (67%) and clear cell carcinomas (67%). The expression was less frequent in endometrioid carcinomas (39%), low grade serous carcinomas (23%), and micropapillary variant of serous borderline tumors (20%). Prognostic significance of IMP3 could be evaluated only in low grade serous carcinomas in the case of relapse-free survival, where negative cases showed better RFS (p = 0.033).
conclusionConcerning differential diagnosis our results imply that despite the differences in expression in the different ovarian tumor types, the practical value for diagnostic purposes is limited. Contrary to other solid tumors, we did not find prognostic significance of IMP3 in ovarian cancer, with the exception of RFS in low grade serous carcinomas. However, the high expression of IMP2 and IMP3 could be of predictive value in ovarian carcinomas since IMP proteins are potential therapeutical targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.