The prognostic significance of the aberrant extremes of p53 immunophenotypes in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The utility of p53 as a prognostic assay has been elusive. The aims of this study were to describe a novel, reproducible scoring system and assess the relationship between differential p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression patterns, TP53 mutation status and patient outcomes in breast cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue microarrays were used to study p53 IHC expression patterns: expression was defined as extreme positive (EP), extreme negative (EN), and non-extreme (NE; intermediate patterns). Overall survival (OS) was used to define patient outcome. A representative subgroup (n = 30) showing the various p53 immunophenotypes was analysed for TP53 hotspot mutation status (exons 4-9). Extreme expression of any type occurred in 176 of 288 (61%) cases. As compared with NE expression, EP expression was significantly associated (P = 0.039) with poorer OS. In addition, as compared with NE expression, EN expression was associated (P = 0.059) with poorer OS. Combining cases showing either EP or EN expression better predicted OS than either pattern alone (P = 0.028). This combination immunophenotype was significant in univariate but not multivariate analysis. In subgroup analysis, six substitution exon mutations were detected, all corresponding to extreme IHC phenotypes. Five missense mutations corresponded to EP staining, and the nonsense mutation corresponded to EN staining. No mutations were detected in the NE group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extreme p53 IHC expression have a worse OS than those with NE expression. Accounting for EN as well as EP expression improves the prognostic impact. Extreme expression positively correlates with nodal stage and histological grade, and negatively with hormone receptor status. Extreme expression may relate to specific mutational status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".