A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Interobserver reproducibility in determining p16 overexpression in cervical lesions : use of a combined scoring method. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate interobserver reproducibility of a combined scoring method for immunohistochemical interpretation of p16 overexpression in cervical lesions.

Materials And Methods: p16 immunostaining was performed in cervical samples from 183 patients, including 69 normal, 42 low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions(LSIL), 36 high grade SIL (HSIL), and 36 squamous cell carcinomas(SCCAs). Each case was evaluated by a combined scoring method based on the percentage of positive cells (score 0-3), the intensity of staining (score 0-3), and the distribution pattern (score 0-2). Immunoexpression for p16 was considered as positive when the combined score was 4-8 and negative with a score of 0-3. Ten pathologists with varied experience in interpretating p16 immunostains evaluated each slide independently.

Results: All normal cervical squamous epithelia (69/69) were uniformly negative for p16. All HSILs (36/36), all SCCAs (100/100), and all but one of the LSILs (40/41, 97.6%) showed positive expression. In 172 of 183 cases (93.9%), p16 interpretation was concordant with all pathologists. Eleven cases with discordant results included 10 LSILs and 1 normal mucosa sample. Percentage of agreement of each pathologist pair ranged from 96.7-100% (mean 98.1%) with mean kappa value of 0.96 (range 0.93-1.000).

Conclusion: The proposed combined scoring method shows good reproducibility among the participating pathologists and good correlation with the histologic diagnosis. This method may be a useful guide in the interpretation of p16 expression in cervical epithelial lesions.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

combined scoring
16
scoring method
16
score 0-3
12
interobserver reproducibility
8
p16
8
p16 overexpression
8
overexpression cervical
8
interpretation p16
8
cervical
5
combined
5

Similar Publications