» Articles » PMID: 22977588

Prediction of Clinical Outcome Using P16INK4a Immunocytochemical Expression in Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions and High-risk HPV-positive Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance in Patients with and Without Colposcopic...

Overview
Journal Exp Ther Med
Specialty Pathology
Date 2012 Sep 15
PMID 22977588
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

p16INK4a as a diagnostic marker of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2+ (CIN2+) in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytological samples has been analyzed, but has not yet been included in clinical routine practice. One hundred and ninety-one patients with an abnormal Pap test (84 ASC-US and 107 LSILs) who underwent colposcopy were selected for this study. At enrollment, 96 patients (Group 1) had a positive colposcopy and therefore underwent a cervical biopsy, while 95 (Group 2) had a negative colposcopy and were followed up for up to 1 year. Both groups were tested for p16INK4a using immunocytochemical methods, and the p16INK4a results were correlated with histology or follow-up outcome. In Group 1 ASC-US cases, 82% of lesions less than CIN2 were p16INK4a-negative and all CIN2 cases were p16INK4a-positive (p=0.00044). In Group 1 LSIL cases, 71% of lesions less than CIN2 were p16INK4a-negative and 87% of CIN2/3 were p16INK4a-positive (p=0.00033). Seventy-seven percent of Group 2 ASC-US patients with a negative 1-year follow-up (NF-U) were p16INK4a-negative at enrollment, while all patients with positive follow-up (PF-U) were p16INK4a-positive (p=0.00113). In Group 2 LSIL cases, 83% of patients with NF-U were p16INK4a-negative, while 65% of patients with PF-U were p16INK4a-positive at enrollment (p=0.0014). In fact, 39% of the positive p16INK4a LSIL patients had CIN2+ histological lesions. The positive predictive value of p16INK4a for CIN2+ was 50% in ASC-US and 52% in LSIL cases; the negative predictive value was 100 and 94%, respectively. In conclusion, in our patients, a negative p16INK4a appears to be a marker of the absence of CIN3, while a positive p16INK4a can be correlated with the presence of histological CIN2+ found at enrollment or during the subsequent follow-up. Thus, its clinical predictive value is independent from the colposcopic aspect at enrollment.

Citing Articles

Expression and role of p16 and GLUT1 in malignant diseases and lung cancer: A review.

Pezzuto A, DAscanio M, Ricci A, Pagliuca A, Carico E Thorac Cancer. 2020; 11(11):3060-3070.

PMID: 32945604 PMC: 7606016. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13651.


Makorin Ring Finger Protein 1 as Adjunctive Marker in Liquid-based Cervical Cytology.

Lee M, Chang M, Shin H, Shin E, Hong S, Kim K Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(3):e2425.

PMID: 26817873 PMC: 4998247. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002425.


HPV16 E6*II gene expression in intraepithelial cervical lesions as an indicator of neoplastic grade: a pilot study.

Pastuszak-Lewandoska D, Bartosinska-Dyc A, Migdalska-Sek M, Czarnecka K, Nawrot E, Domanska D Med Oncol. 2014; 31(3):842.

PMID: 24436016 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-014-0842-6.

References
1.
Bergeron C, Ordi J, Schmidt D, Trunk M, Keller T, Ridder R . Conjunctive p16INK4a testing significantly increases accuracy in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010; 133(3):395-406. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPXSVCDZ3D5MZM. View

2.
Ortega S, Malumbres M, Barbacid M . Cyclin D-dependent kinases, INK4 inhibitors and cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2002; 1602(1):73-87. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-419x(02)00037-9. View

3.
Trunk M, Dallenbach-Hellweg G, Ridder R, Petry K, Ikenberg H, Schneider V . Morphologic characteristics of p16INK4a-positive cells in cervical cytology samples. Acta Cytol. 2004; 48(6):771-82. DOI: 10.1159/000326445. View

4.
Galgano M, Castle P, Atkins K, Brix W, Nassau S, Stoler M . Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(8):1077-87. PMC: 2921638. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4. View

5.
Alsharif M, Kjeldahl K, Curran C, Miller S, Gulbahce H, Pambuccian S . Clinical significance of the diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Cancer. 2009; 117(2):92-100. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20004. View