p53 immunohistochemical analysis of fusion‐positive uterine sarcomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Uterine sarcomas can be grouped into tumours with pathognomonic genetic fusions such as low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LGESS), high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (HGESS), and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour (IMT), and tumours lacking genetic fusions such as leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and undifferentiated uterine sarcoma (UUS). Members of the latter group frequently harbour TP53 mutations. The aim of this study was to evaluate TP53 mutations by the use of immunohistochemistry in fusion-positive uterine sarcomas. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed p53 immunohistochemical staining on 124 uterine sarcomas harbouring genetic fusions and 38 fusion-negative LMSs and UUSs. These included 41 HGESSs with YWHAE, BCOR and BCORL1 fusions/rearrangements, 13 IMTs with ALK fusion, 12 sarcomas with NTRK1/3 fusion, three sarcomas with PDGFB fusion, and 55 LGESSs with JAZF1, SUZ12 and PHF1 fusions/rearrangements. All HGESSs, LGESSs, IMTs and sarcomas with PDGFB fusion showed wild-type p53 expression. Among NTRK1/3-positive sarcomas, a TPR-NTRK1-positive sarcoma with nuclear pleomorphism showed mutation-type p53 expression. The remaining 11 NTRK1/3-positive sarcomas showed wild-type p53 expression, except for the subclonal p53 mutation-type staining in a minor pleomorphic focus of an NTRK3-positive sarcoma. Twenty-one of 27 (78%) LMSs and six of nine (67%) UUSs showed mutation-type p53 expression. CONCLUSION: p53 immunohistochemistry may be considered in the initial work-up of a uterine sarcoma, as mutation-type staining would make a fusion-positive sarcoma very unlikely. Mutation-type p53 expression, however, can be seen in a small subset of NTRK1/3-positive sarcomas showing pleomorphic round/ovoid cell histology, which may represent a mechanism of progression in these tumours.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".