The role of p16(INK4a) immunostaining in the risk assessment of women with LSIL cytology: a prospective pragmatic study.

BACKGROUND: The detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2 or worse) among patients with low-grade cytology (LSIL) is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of p16(INK4a) in the risk assessment of women with LSIL cytology. METHODS: Consecutive liquid-based cytology specimens of 95 LSIL smears were selected and stained for p16(INK4a). All patients had colposcopically directed punch biopsies or large loop excision of the transformation zone of the cervix. The endpoint was detection of a biopsy-confirmed CIN2 or worse. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of p16(INK4a) for diagnosis of CIN2+ among LSIL smears were 41% and 86%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the biomarker was 62% and the negative predictive value 72%. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that p16(INK4a) has low sensitivity but acceptable specificity for evaluation of LSIL smears harbouring high-grade lesions. The marker needs to be further assessed as an adjunct to other tests in an attempt to improve the triage of LSIL cytology smears.

Alterations in human papillomavirus-related biomarkers after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the alterations in various HPV-related biomarkers 6 months post-treatment and how these relate to various risk factors and individual characteristics; their role for the prediction of treatment failure was also evaluated. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. POPULATION: Women planning to undergo treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. INTERVENTION: A liquid-based cytology sample was taken pre-operatively. This was tested for HPV genotyping, Nucleic Acid Sequence Based Amplification, flow cytometric evaluation and p16 immunostaining. A repeat LBC sample was obtained 6 months post-treatment and was tested for the same biomarkers. OUTCOMES: The alterations of the biomarkers 6 months post-treatment were recorded. Their relation to individual characteristics and risk factors (age, smoking, sexual history, use of condom, CIN grade, excision margin status, crypt involvement) as well as their role for the prediction of residual/recurrent disease were assessed. ANALYSIS: The accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and the likelihood ratios) of each biomarker for the prediction of recurrent/residual CIN were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 190 women were recruited. All biomarkers had significantly higher negativity rates post-treatment compared to pre-treatment ones. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that consistent condom use post-treatment significantly reduces the high-risk HPV positivity rates in comparison to no use (OR=0.18; 95% CI: 0.09-0.38). Sensitivity and specificity for all high risk HPV DNA testing were 0.5/0.62, respectively; the relevant values for only type 16 or 18 DNA typing were 0.5/0.92, for NASBA 0.5/0.94, for flow 0.5/0.85 and for p16 0.25/0.93. CONCLUSION: CIN treatment reduces positivity for all HPV-related biomarkers. Consistent condom use significantly reduces high-risk HPV positivity rates. More cases of treatment failures are required in order to specify whether different combinations of HPV-related biomarkers could enhance the accuracy of follow up, possibly in the form of a Scoring System that could allow tailored post-treatment surveillance.

High-risk human papillomavirus DNA test and p16(INK4a) in the triage of LSIL: a prospective diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE: The detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) amongst patients with low-grade cytology (LSIL) is challenging. This study evaluated the role of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) DNA test and p16(INK4a) immunostaining in identifying women with LSIL cytology at risk of harboring CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) and the role of p16(INK4a) in the triage of a population of HR-HPV positive LSIL. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study including women with LSIL cytology. Detection of HR-HPV was carried out by means of a polymerase chain reaction based assay. p16(INK4a) immunostaining was performed using the Dako CINtec cytology kit. All patients had colposcopically directed punch biopsies or large loop excision of the transformation zone of the cervix. The endpoint was detection of a biopsy-confirmed CIN2+. RESULTS: A series of 126 women with LSIL cytology were included. HR-HPV test had sensitivity 75% and specificity 64% for an endpoint of CIN2+. p16(INK4a) had significantly higher specificity of 89% (p=0.0000) but low sensitivity of 42%. The role of p16(INK4a) immunostaining in the triage of LSIL positive for HR-HPV was also evaluated. p16(INK4a) triage had 70% positive predictive value (PPV); however, this was not significantly higher than the PPV (56%) of HR-HPV test alone (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that HR-HPV or p16(INK4a) cannot be used as solitary markers for the assessment of LSIL. The addition of p16(INK4a) immunostaining led to an increase in HR-HPV specificity; however, the biomarker needs to be assessed further to establish its role as an adjunct test in the triage of LSIL.

p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: P16(INK4a) is a biomarker for transforming HPV infections that could act as an adjunct to current cytological and histological assessment of cervical smears and biopsies, allowing the identification of those women with ambiguous results that require referral to colposcopy and potentially treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of all studies that evaluated the use of p16(INK4a) in cytological or histological specimens from the uterine cervix. We also estimated the mean proportion of samples that were positive for p16(INK4a) in cytology and histology, stratified by the grade of the lesion. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies were included. The proportion of cervical smears overexpressing p16(INK4a) increased with the severity of cytological abnormality. Among normal smears, only 12% (95% CI: 7-17%) were positive for the biomarker compared to 45% of ASCUS and LSIL (95% CI: 35-54% and 37-57%, respectively) and 89% of HSIL smears (95% CI: 84-95%). Similarly, in histology only 2% of normal biopsies (95% CI: 0.4-30%) and 38% of CIN1 (95% CI: 23-53%) showed diffuse staining for p16(INK4a) compared to 68% of CIN2 (95% CI: 44-92%) and 82% of CIN3 (95% CI: 72-92%). CONCLUSION: Although there is good evidence that p16(INK4a) immunostaining correlates with the severity of cytological/histological abnormalities, the reproducibility is limited due to insufficiently standardized interpretation of the immunostaining. Therefore, a consensus needs to be reached regarding the evaluation of p16(INK4a) staining and the biomarker needs to be assessed in various clinical settings addressing specific clinical questions.

The up-to-date evidence on colposcopy practice and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the Cochrane colposcopy & cervical cytopathology collaborative group (C5 group) approach.

This overview presents the up-to-date evidence on colposcopy practice and other diagnostic modalities such as HPV DNA test and cytology for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Current evidence supports the use of colposcopy for the detection of intraepithelial lesions as a second line tool. CIN treatment involves either excisional or destructive techniques, usually performed under local anesthesia. Although a debate exists about the most efficient approach, the currently available evidence reveals no differences in efficacy among the available conservative methods of treatment. New evidence supports treatment by destructive rather than excisional techniques, at least for low grade lesions in women wishing future childbearing, as they appear to have no apparent pregnancy-related morbidity. Treatment failures rates might increase in cases of involved excision margins, older age or glandular involvement. There is no worldwide consensus on the optimal follow-up policy, interventions or frequency in surveillance after treatment. HPV DNA test combined with either colposcopy or cytology is a promising combination for the early detection of treatment failures due to residual disease. Existing guidelines should probably be updated incorporating the new information emerged from recently published work.

Ovarian cancer screening.

PURPOSE: This review presents the current knowledge on ovarian cancer screening (OCS) together with a cumulative evaluation of the efficacy across diverse screening approaches based on up-to-date results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted targeting reports on the effectiveness of the various screening strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-two prospective studies, 18 cohorts and 4 randomised control trials (RCTs) were retrieved. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, as well as the number needed to treat for each cancer (NNT) and each stage I disease [NNT (I)] detected are reported. CONCLUSION: The multimodal approach that incorporates CA125 as a primary and ultrasound as a secondary test appears to be superior to other strategies. However, the conclusive end-point that would provide the acceptable level of evidence for the introduction of screening should be a reduction in mortality. Up-to-date, there is no such evidence to justify this.