ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025
Evaluation of the prognostic potential of histopathological subtyping in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) can be categorized into four gene expression-based subtypes, with supposedly distinct prognoses and treatment responses. Murakami et al. translated these gene expression-based subtypes into the histopathological mesenchymal, immunoreactive, solid and proliferative, and papilloglandular subtypes, showing differences in survival outcomes. Miyagawa et al. refined these criteria to improve the interobserver concordance. The current retrospective study evaluated the interobserver variability and the prognostic differences between the histopathologic subtypes using the criteria of both Murakami et al. and Miyagawa et al. in 208 HGSOC cases. The mesenchymal subtype was considered first, followed by the immunoreactive subtype. Non-conforming cases were categorized as solid and proliferative or papilloglandular. The mesenchymal subtype was identified in 122 patients (58.7%) for both criteria. Using the criteria of Murakami et al., 10 cases (4.8%) were immunoreactive, 26 (12.5%) solid and proliferative, and 50 (24%) papilloglandular, with a concordance rate of 62.5% (κ = 0.34, p < .001). Using the Miyagawa et al. criteria, 23 cases (11%) were immunoreactive, 20 (9.6%) solid and proliferative, and 43 (20.7%) papilloglandular. No survival differences were observed between the subtypes. The fair reproducibility of the histopathological subtype classification of HGSOC and the lack of survival differences among these subtypes indicate the need for further refinement of the criteria and exploration of their correlation with overall survival outcomes before clinical application.
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.