ArticleDermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Need for Standardization of PRAME Immunohistochemistry in Melanocytic Neoplasms.
Article in Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of melanomas is crucial for proper evaluation and treatment. One immunohistochemical stain frequently utilized is PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma), a tumor-associated antigen expressed in most melanomas. This study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of PRAME scoring performed by dermatopathologists at an academic tertiary referral medical center. A blinded survey was designed featuring 21 melanocytic neoplasms stained with PRAME and H&E. For each case, five dermatopathologists provided a PRAME score from 0-4+, percent PRAME positivity, values for H-score, and a descriptive interpretation. Absolute agreement across raters was assessed using a Kappa statistic for PRAME score and intraclass correlations (ICCs) for H-score and PRAME percentage. Statistical analysis indicated poor inter-rater reliability for PRAME score (Kappa = 0.16), percent PRAME positivity (ICC = 0.31), and H-score (ICC = 0.40). Reporting language varied among pathologists. Our study demonstrated that the interpretation of PRAME immunohistochemistry lacks reproducibility, especially for challenging lesions. This suggests that a more rigorous, defined, and reproducible scoring method should be investigated for equivocal cases. Future studies may explore the utility of artificial intelligence software in the interpretation of PRAME for borderline lesions to improve reliability and standardize scoring.
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.