ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Proficiency test of BRAF immunohistochemistry as a surrogate marker of p.V600E mutation: Assessment of staining and interpretation quality in Taiwan.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BRAF immunohistochemistry (IHC) serves as a surrogate for BRAF p.V600E but shows variable performance across tumor types and institutions. This study evaluated BRAF IHC staining quality and interpretation in general pathology laboratories through a nationwide proficiency test (PT) in Taiwan, focusing on the most commonly encountered thyroid neoplasm and colorectal cancer. This PT was organized by the Taiwan Society of Pathology using a tissue microarray, containing six tumor cores with confirmed BRAF mutation status and one positive control. Participating laboratories performed BRAF IHC staining and interpretation independently, with results centrally reviewed for concordance, accuracy, and staining quality. Twenty-six pathology laboratories participated. Two laboratories failed the initial control check. Among the remaining 24, 17 (70.83%) demonstrated optimal staining, while 5 (20.83%) showed over-staining and 2 (8.33%) under-staining. No significant associations were found between staining quality and antibody clones, platforms, dilution folds, or assay types. Interpretation was highly concordant (100% agreement and accuracy) for tissues with 3 + or negative staining. However, discrepancies arose in tissues with 2 + intensity (50% positive, 41.67% negative, 8.33% equivocal) and 1 + intensity (83.33% disagreement with test results). The overall accuracy was 79.2%, with sensitivity at 58.3% and specificity at 100%. Under-calling was frequent in cases with 1 + staining (33 cores across 23 laboratories) and 2 + staining (3 cores across 3 laboratories). Our study highlights the importance of optimizing staining quality and reinforcing education on interpretation criteria. To minimize false-negative results, we recommend molecular confirmation for all cases exhibiting diffusely weak staining.
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.