Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762226›Full record

ArticleHistopathology2026

Use of p53 immunohistochemistry can improve diagnostic agreement for differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN): an international reproducibility study.

Shatavisha Dasgupta, Anne-Sophie Van Rompuy, Christine Bergeron, Debra S Heller, Demaretta Rush, Francoise Plantier, James Scurry, Jennifer Roberts, Joost Bart, Kathleen Lambein and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Histopathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Shatavisha DasguptaDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-5015
Anne-Sophie Van RompuyDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0138-4486
Christine BergeronDepartment of Pathology, CerbaPath, Paris, France.
Debra S HellerDepartment of Pathology, Immunology, & Laboratory Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8378-4642
Demaretta RushDepartment of Pathology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Francoise PlantierDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2489-9141
James ScurryDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, NSW Health Pathology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Jennifer RobertsGynaePath, Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7229-8617
Joost BartDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0985-071X
Kathleen LambeinDepartment of Pathology, AZ St Lucas, Ghent, Belgium.
Katy VeprauskasDepartment of Pathology, Pathology Specialists of New England, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA.
Koen K Van de VijverDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Research Institute Ghent, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2026-9790
Lex Acf MakkusLaboratory for Pathology, PAL Dordrecht, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Loes KooremanDepartment of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-8665
Maaike BleekerDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9610-8064
Mahfooz Basha MohamedDepartment of Cellular Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1701-3778
Maria Angelica SelimDepartments of Pathology and Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Maria Carmen Rodriguez AlvarezMontevideo, Uruguay.
Mieke R Van BockstalDepartment of Pathology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4498-928X
Noel Jean-ChristopheDepartment of Gynaecopathology and Breast Pathology, Erasme University Hospital-ULB, Brussels, Belgium.
Patricia GuzmanGynaePath, Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Radhika SrinivasanDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1771-091X
Rupali AroraDepartment of Cellular Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9087-4876
Russell BallBall Dermpath, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Suzanne WilhelmusDepartment of Pathology, Pathan BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-5315
Senada KoljenovićDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5185-3455
Folkert J van KemenadeDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-4354
Patricia C Ewing-GrahamDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1779-1115

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsDifferentiated or HPV-independent vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN) can progress rapidly to invasive cancer and accurate pathological diagnosis is essential to facilitate appropriate interventions. Histological similarities of dVIN with non-neoplastic lesions, however, often make the diagnosis less reproducible. We investigated among a diverse group of pathologists whether the diagnostic agreement improves with the use of p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) interpreted using the pattern-based schema. METHODS AND

resultsFifty haematoxylin-eosin (HE) stained archival slides (30 dVIN and 20 non-dysplastic vulvar lesions) were selected and p53-IHC was performed. Twenty-four board-certified pathologists from eight countries first assessed the HE slides alone, and after a washout period, re-evaluated them alongside the p53-IHC slides. During both rounds, slides were diagnosed as dVIN, favour dVIN, favour no-VIN or no-VIN. p53-IHC was scored as wild-type or mutant (diffuse, basal, cytoplasmic or null). Kappa (κ) statistics and McNemar's test were used for statistical analyses. Overall diagnostic agreement for dVIN saw a significant increase in the Kappa value (κ = 0.6 vs. κ = 0.4, P = 0.002) when HE and p53-IHC slides were assessed together compared with histology assessment alone, although the level of agreement remained moderate. For p53-IHC assessment, overall agreement was substantial (κ = 0.7). Diagnoses changing from no-VIN/favour no-VIN to dVIN correlated significantly with the identification of a p53-mutant pattern (P < 0.001).

conclusionsOur findings indicate that p53-IHC is a robust ancillary tool that can be reproducibly interpreted by pathologists with varying experience levels and supports the routine use of p53-IHC in cases where dVIN is considered in the differential diagnosis.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma in SituTumor Suppressor Protein p53Vulvar NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, TumorTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53carcinoma‐in‐situhistologyimmunohistochemistrylower genital tractobserver variationtumour suppressor protein p53vulvar neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID40762226
PMCPMC12703432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.