ArticleAntibodies (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Evaluation of Three Primary Antibody Clones for p16 Immunohistochemistry in Gynecologic Tumors.
Article in Antibodies (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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundp16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) serves as a surrogate marker for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and is widely used in gynecologic pathology. However, few studies have directly compared the staining performance and reproducibility of different p16 antibody clones in this context.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 176 gynecologic tumor specimens including 42 whole slide sections and 134 tissue microarray cores from the cervix, endometrium, vulva, and ovary using three fully automated p16 IHC assays: E6H4 (Ventana/Roche), JC8 (Agilent/Dako), and 6H12 (Leica). Two pathologists independently reviewed each case, and concordance and interobserver agreement were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's κ statistics were calculated, with E6H4 serving as the reference.
resultsAll three antibody clones demonstrated excellent staining performance with preserved tissue morphology and minimal background artifacts. Concordance for p16 positivity/negativity was 100% across all clone pairings (95% CI: 97.9-100%). Interobserver reproducibility was also perfect, with a κ coefficient of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00). Minor non-block staining patterns did not impair interpretability.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that E6H4, JC8, and 6H12 clones yield comparable staining results when used in conjunction with standardized automated protocols. These results support the practical interchangeability of these clones in clinical and research settings, particularly when cost, availability, or risk management require substitution. Laboratories should continue to perform internal validation and utilize external quality assurance programs when implementing p16 IHC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.