ArticleHistology and histopathology2025
MLH1 and MSH2 expression in endometrial cancer - microscopic and computer assessment of immunohistochemical method.
Article in Histology and histopathology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to compare MLH1 and MSH2 protein expression and Mismatch repair (MMR) status with clinical data: diagnosis, grading, and staging. Moreover, we wanted to assess any correlation between two immunohistochemical assessments: classic microscopic and computer analysis performed by a calibrated program. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur studies were conducted on 95 cases of endometrial cancer. For each, we performed H+E staining and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of two MMR status proteins: MLH1 and MSH2. Two independent researchers assessed IHC on a 0 to ++++ scale. We classified cases as MMR-deficient based on the microscopic assessment of the absence of expression of at least one protein. For computer analysis, we used Olympus cellSens software to measure the positive IHC reaction area in µm
resultsDespite using two different assessment methods, we did not identify any statistically significant relationship between diagnosis, grading, staging, MMR protein expression, and MMR status. However, we found a strong correlation between computer analysis and semi-quantitative microscopic assessment (r=0.59 for MLH1 and r=0.76 for MSH2;
conclusionWe did not find a relationship between MMR status and grading, staging, or diagnosis. However, we present a novel approach to immunohistochemical assessment using computer analysis. It allows us to carry out more objective and accurate studies with the IHC method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39949324What 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.