Table 2 The relationship between IMP3 and p53 signatures^ in tubal epithelia Case group (No.) # IMP3 signatures (%) # p53 signatures (%) # Conc (%) # Discord (%) # Indep (%) Benign (60) 0 0  

    w/STIC (48) 15 (31) 20 (53) 5(33) 4(27) 6(40) w/oSTIC(62) 10 (16) 18 (47) 4(40) 4(40) 2(20) ^IMP3 or p53 signature is defined by either moderate or strong immunostainings in benign appearing tubal epithelia. Compared to the benign and cancer cases without STIC, the number of IMP3 signature was significantly higher in the tubal epithelia of the cases with STIC with p values of < 0.0001 and < 0.05, respectively. #Conc: the number of concordance; #Discord: the number of discordance; #Indep: the number of independent signatures of IMP3 and p53. STIC: serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma.

w/: with; w/o: without. The concordance, discordance, and independent rate were calculated from the IMP3 signature Cell Cycle inhibitor data after comparing the cases with p53 signature. The reverse relationship OSI-027 cell line was not evaluated in this study. IMP3 and p53 Expression in STIC The positive IMP3 overexpression was defined as more than 10% of the target cells showing at least moderate intensity staining in the cytoplasm [29], while p53 positivity was defined as more than 75% of intense nuclei staining of the target cells [32]. Among the 48 patients with areas of STIC we studied, we observed positive Sitaxentan IMP3 in 22 (46%) and p53 overexpression in 40 (83%) cases, respectively. The positive expression of IMP3 in STIC

ranged from 15% to 100% cancer cells with an average of 45.5%. Among the 22 IMP3 positive cases in STIC, 17 (77%) were positive and five (23%) were negative for p53 staining. Within the same 48 STIC patients, eight (17%) cases showed negative expression for both IMP3 and p53. The representative pictures of IMP3 and p53 for STIC and the corresponding data are presented in Figure 3 and Table 3. Figure 3 IMP3 and p53 overexpression in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). STIC (top panel) was strongly positive for both p53 (mid panel) and IMP3 (low panel). Apparently, this case showed more intraepithelial cancer cells were positive for p53 than those of IMP3. However, some of the neoplastic cells were positive for both p53 and IMP3 (right side of the mid and low panels). Original magnifications: left panel, 40x; right panel, 200x. Table 3 IMP3 and p53 immunoreactivity in STIC and invasive HGSC     Invasive HGSC of ovary   STIC W/ STIC W/O STIC   No. (%) cases P No. (%) cases P No. (%) cases P IMP3+ 22 (46)   20 (42)   25 (40)   IMP3- 26 (54) 0.82 28 (58) 0.56 37 (60) 0.71 p53+ 40 (83)   42 (88)   53 (85)   p53- 8 (17) < 0.01 6 (12) < 0.01 9 (15) < 0.01 IMP3+/p53+ 17 (35)   17 (35)   19 (31)   IMP3+/p53- 5 (10) <0.05 3 (6) <0.05 7 (11) <0.05 IMP3-/p53+ 18 (38)   20 (42)   28 (45)   IMP3-/p53- 8 (17) 0.26 8 (17) 0.16 9 (15) 0.