ArticleScientific reports2025
Quantifying intratumoral biomarker heterogeneity in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma to optimize clinical translation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) is spatial, phenotypic, or molecular differences within the same tumor that have important implications for accurate tumor classification and assessment of predictive biomarkers. The Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource (COEUR) has created a cohort of 437 FFPE tissue specimens from 108 tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) patients to quantify ITH across the anatomical sites and between primary and recurrence. We quantified the ITH of six clinically used immunohistochemical diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers (WT1, p53, p16, PR, CD8, and Ki67). Markers were stained on tissue microarrays and scored using a continuous or categorical interpretation of staining patterns. Two-way random effect and nested intraclass correlation were used to assess continuous markers, and Gwet's AC1 was used for categorical markers. All biomarkers showed at least substantial agreement over several spatial comparisons, with WT1, p53 and p16 showing almost perfect agreement for most spatial comparisons. Similarly, categorical WT1, p53 and p16 showed almost perfect agreement for temporal comparisons, while the agreement for primary versus recurrence for PR, CD8 and Ki67 was only fair. We provide power calculations to achieve reliability of > 0.60 and recommend testing emerging protein biomarkers to see whether they reach a clinically acceptable benchmark level of ITH.
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.