Using Biomarkers as Objective Standards in the Diagnosis of Cervical Biopsies
Top Cited Papers
- 1 August 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
- Vol. 34 (8) , 1077-1087
- https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e3181e8b2c4
Abstract
Histopathologic diagnosis of cervical biopsies determines clinical management of patients with an abnormal cervical cancer-screening test yet is prone to poor interobserver reproducibility. Immunohistochemical staining for biomarkers related to the different stages of cervical carcinogenesis may provide objective standards to reduce diagnostic variability of cervical biopsy evaluations but systematic, rigorous evaluations of their potential clinical utility are lacking. To address diagnostic utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1, p16INK4a, and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining for improving diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a community-based and population-based evaluation using 1455 consecutive cervical biopsies submitted to the Department of Pathology at the University of Virginia during a period of 14 months. Thin-sections of each biopsy from 1451 of 1455 (99.7%) biopsies underwent evaluation of immunohistochemical stains for the 3 biomarkers, masked to the original diagnosis, and the results were compared with an adjudicated, consensus diagnosis by 3 pathologists. p16INK4a immunostaining, using the strongest staining as the cutpoint, was 86.7% sensitive and 82.8% specific for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) diagnoses. The performance of p16INK4a was more sensitive (PP+ compared with the combined performance of all pathologist reviews in routine clinical diagnostic service (sensitivity=68.9%, specificity=97.2%). Ki-67 immunostaining was also strongly associated with a CIN2+ diagnosis but its performance at all staining intensities was inferior to p16INK4a immunostaining, and did not increase the accuracy of CIN2+ diagnosis when combined with p16INK4a immunostaining compared with p16INK4a immunostaining alone. We found no utility for L1 immunostaining in distinguishing between CIN and non-CIN. In conclusion, with a rigorous evaluation, we found immunohistochemical staining for p16INK4a to be a useful and reliable diagnostic adjunct for distinguishing biopsies with and without CIN2+.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- An analysis on the combination expression of HPV L1 capsid protein and p16INK4a in cervical lesionsDiagnostic Cytopathology, 2010
- Impact of Improved Classification on the Association of Human Papillomavirus With Cervical PrecancerAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2009
- HPV Vaccine Protein L1 Predicts Disease Outcome of High-Risk HPV+ Early Squamous Dysplastic LesionsAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2009
- Effect of Human Papillomavirus on Cell Cycle–Related Proteins p16, Ki-67, Cyclin D1, p53, and ProEx C in Precursor Lesions of Cervical CarcinomaAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2009
- Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysisBMJ, 2008
- Can HPV-16 Genotyping Provide a Benchmark for Cervical Biopsy Specimen Interpretation?American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2008
- 2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Adenocarcinoma In SituJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 2007
- Utility of p16INK4a, CEA, Ki67, P53 and ER/PR in the Differential Diagnosis of Benign, Premalignant, and Malignant Glandular Lesions of the Uterine Cervix and Their Relationship with Silverberg Scoring System for Endocervical Glandular LesionsInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 2007
- Impact of utilizing p16INK4A immunohistochemistry on estimated performance of three cervical cancer screening testsInternational Journal of Cancer, 2006
- Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and Ki67 as related to disease severity and HPV detection in squamous lesions of the cervixGynecologic Oncology, 2006