ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Interpreting p53 IHC-TP53 NGS discordance in endometrial cancer: a mechanism-based diagnostic framework and clinical implications.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse discordances between p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 614 patients with endometrial cancer treated at two oncological centres between 2022 and 2025. All patients underwent both p53 IHC and Results: Among 110 patients with p53 abnormalities identified by p53 IHC and/or Conclusions: IHC-NGS discordance in p53 assessment represents a multimechanistic phenomenon observed in over 20% of p53-abnormal cases. The proposed mechanism-based interpretative framework may support consistent evaluation of borderline cases and improve diagnostic decision-making in clinical practice. In clinically significant scenarios, particularly near diagnostic thresholds, pathological re-evaluation and supplementary NGS testing should be considered prior to treatment planning.
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.