The Coexistence of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN3) and Adenocarcinoma In Situ (AIS) in LEEP Excisions Performed for CIN3.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of AIS and AC in the histological cone of women treated for CIN3. Furthermore, through the study of the specific HR HPV genotypes, we obtained more information on the possible different nature between the single CIN3 lesion and the CIN3 coexisting with the glandular lesion. METHODS: A sample of 414 women underwent LEEP for CIN3. The study sample consisted of 370 women with a CIN3 lesion alone and 44 women with a CIN3 lesion coexisting with AIS or adenocarcinoma. We studied the individual HR HPV genotypes and their frequency in the two groups under study. Furthermore, the therapeutic results and follow-ups for the population were studied on the entire study sample. RESULTS: In patients with a single CIN3 lesion, 11 high-risk genotypes were detected; in patients with CIN3 associated with AIS or AC, only 4 different genotypes were detected (16, 18, 45, 33). Overall, the frequency of HPV 18 was significantly higher in CIN3 coexisting with AIS compared to solitary CIN3 lesions, χ2 = 27.73 (p < 0.001), while the frequency of other high-risk genotypes was significantly higher in patients with a single CIN3 than in patients with CIN3 coexisting with AIS. In our study population, mixed lesions (CIN3 coexisting with AIS), unlike their squamous counterparts (single CIN3 lesions), were characterized by skip lesions, which demonstrate more aggressive behavior and a higher rate of viral persistence and recurrence. CONCLUSION: A relatively high rate (10.7%) of AIS-AC was found in women treated for CIN3. Our study confirms the multifocal biological nature of the CIN3 lesion coexisting with AIS compared to the single CIN3 lesion. All this justifies the different treatments to which CIN3 lesions coexisting with AIS are addressed; in fact, the latter are treated with hysterectomy, while CIN3 is treated with conization alone.

Spontaneous regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 in women with a biopsy-cone interval of greater than 11 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Although there is broad consensus that only a subset of CIN3 will progress to cancer, there is currently no surefire way to predict which CIN3 will regress. Understanding the natural history of CIN3 is important, and finding markers for progression or regression could improve treatment strategies. According to the guidelines of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology of 2006, positive CIN3 p16 in women should be managed with excisional treatment (LEEP). For ethical reasons we cannot fail to treat women with CIN3 in order to study their regression capacity so we conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the regression rate of CIN3 diagnosed with a biopsy by studying the histological result of the cone removed by LEEP. We also investigated age, HPV genotypes and biopsy-cone interval distance as possible regression factors. METHODS: We selected 171 women with a histological diagnosis of positive CIN3 p16 as an entry criterion. All patients underwent LEEP / biopsy. A histological diagnosis of the cone of CIN3 or higher was considered as persistence or progression, the diagnosis of CIN1 or lower was considered as regression of the lesion. We used out a logistic model to study the probability of spontaneous regression of CIN3 as a function of the patient's age, the time elapsed between the biopsy and the cone (in weeks) and the HPV genotype. RESULTS: We found that the spontaneous regression rate of CIN3 was 15,8%, which was strongly associated with the biopsy-cone interval > 11 weeks. Genotype 16, the most represented, was present both in cases of regression (77.8%) and in persistence (83.3%). Regarding age, the estimated odds ratio of the probability of observing a regression in women over 25 years of age was 0.0045 times that of women under 25 years of age (CI: 0.00020, 0.036). Neither age nor viral genotype are significant as predictors of regression. CONCLUSION: To wait at least 11 weeks from the biopsy before subjecting the woman to LEEP could prevent unnecessary LEEP procedures, considering also that from CIN3 to carcinoma it takes years before the neoplastic transformation takes place.

Possible role of negative human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA as a predictor of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 lesions in hr-HPV positive women.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the regression rate of CIN2 p16 positive lesions in women over 25 years of age and identify possible predictors of regression. METHODS: A total of 128 CIN2 p16 positive patients over 25 years old were considered. The women met the following inclusion criteria: HPV genotype 16, 18, 31, 33, 45 positive, HPV E6 / E7 mRNA test positive, without immune system pathologies, not pregnant and had completed at least two years of follow-up. At each follow-up examination patients were examined by colposcopy, HPV test, E6/E7mRNA, targeted biopsy and p16 protein detection. The final state after the two years of follow-up was classified as progression if the histology showed a CIN3, persistence if the lesion was a CIN2, regression if negative or LSIL. The predicted regression factors evaluated were: HPV E6/E7mRNA, protein p16. RESULTS: Overall, we had 35.1% (45 cases) of progression to CIN3, 41.4% (53 cases) of persistence and 23.4% (30 cases) of regression. The regression rate was higher in women with negative mRNA 92.8% (26/28), OR 312 (34.12-1798.76) p = 0.0001, while women with p16 negative had a regression of 22.6% (7/31), OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.36-2.46), p was not significant. We found no significant difference in regression between p16 positive (23.7%) and p16 negative (22.6%) CIN2 p16 lesions. p16 had a VPN of 22.6 (CI 95% 0.159-0.310), indicating that a p16 negative lesion does not exclude a CIN2 + . CONCLUSIONS: We had a regression rate of 23.4%, which was low if we consider that in the literature the regression rates vary from 55 to 63%. The discrepancy in the results may indeed be explained by the fact that all lesions in our study were hr-HPV positive and belonged to "older women" reflecting a more "high-risk" population. As regression factors we studied p16 and HPV E6/E7 mRNA. The results of our study show that HPV mRNA, if negative, appears to be able to identify CIN2 lesions with a higher probability of regression and underlines how a p16 negative is not an indicator of regression.

Progression of CIN1/LSIL HPV Persistent of the Cervix: Actual Progression or CIN3 Coexistence.

Objective: The natural history of the CIN1 lesions is characterized by an elevated rate of spontaneous regression (80%), some authors recognize a capacity to progress to HSIL in 10% of cases, and other authors do not recognize the capacity of progression of LSIL (CIN1). This study was aimed to evaluate the incidence of progression to HSIL (CIN3) in women with a histological diagnosis of LSIL (CIN1). Furthermore, to this end, we studied the histological outcomes of cone specimens collected by the LEEP. Methods: All the data were retrospectively analyzed. All participants underwent a follow-up of 4 years, during which each woman underwent an HPV test and genotyping, cervical cytological sampling, or biopsy every six months. The endpoint was the histological confirmation of CIN3 lesions in any moment during follow-up. Results: Progression to CIN3 occurred in 7 cases (1,5%). Analyzing the histological exams of the cones of the 7 cases that progressed to CIN3, we found the coexistence of CIN1 and CIN3 lesions in all cases. Conclusion: After 4 years of follow-up, only 1.5% (7/475) of the women with LSIL developed CIN3, all within the first two years of follow-up, and were immediately treated. The most likely explanations for "progression" from LSIL to HSIL are (1) actual progression, (2) underdiagnosis of HSIL on initial biopsy, (3) overdiagnosis of HSIL on follow-up biopsy/cone, and (4) CIN3 arose de novo. Analyzing the histological exams of the cones of the 7 cases that progressed to high-grade, we found the coexistence of CIN1 and CIN3 lesions in all cases. Some recent studies have shown that a viral genotype corresponds to different lesions in the same cervix; therefore, CIN1 coexisting with CIN3 does not always indicate progression of CIN1. Other authors have doubted the capacity of LSIL to progress.

Conservative management of CIN2 p16 positive lesions in women with multiple HPV infection.

BACKGROUND: According to the 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines, positive CIN2 p16 in women over the age of 25 should be managed with excisional treatment. However, excisional treatment is associated with physical, psychological and obstetric morbidity and can have a negative impact on sexual function. In our study we sought to identify a clear management strategy, addressing the impact of routine use of p16 immunohistochemistry in this population and identify appropriate criteria for patient selection with the aim of reducing over-treatment. METHOD: We studied the medical records of 130 patients who had undergone laser therapy for CIN2. Each patient underwent colposcopy, biopsy and HPV test and were tested for p16 protein,. Patients were divided based on HPV infection into: single infections, multiple infections. All patients underwent ZTA laser therapy with follow-up (2-year follow-up). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Contingency tables were created to evaluate the correlation between single, multiple and CIN2+ infections. Values with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Single infections had a histological regression of 61.8% (21/34) and a histological persistence rate of 35.3% (12/34), which was greater than the multiple infection rate. The common characteristic that the women with persistence and progression had was the dimension of the lesion and the genotype 16. Ten cases of histological persistence and the only case of progression had one lesion greater than three quarters of the cervix. CONCLUSIONS: With the progress of our understanding of the natural history of infection from human papillomavirus and the increasing use of colposcopy, thanks to the addition of HPV genotyping and the technique of immunohistochemistry, conservative management of these lesions is now possible.

Multiple HPV 16 infection with two strains: a possible marker of neoplastic progression.

BACKGROUND: We studied the cases of single and multiple HPV infection and analyzed the correlation with negative cases, and preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the uterine cervix with the aim of making a contribution to the prognostic factor under discussion. METHODS: Nine hundred nine women undergoing second level screening because they had been positive at cervical cytology were enrolled. All the patients underwent colposcopy and cervical biopsy with viral genotyping. We divided mHPV infection based on the number of genotypes present: infections with 2 strains, 3 strains, 4 strains and 5 or more strains. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The analysis of the data was made using the χ2 test. Contingency tables were created to evaluate the correlation between single, multiple and CIN2+ infections. Values with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The presence of genotype HPV16 in our study was associated with a 12 times greater risk of developing a high-grade lesion, OR = 12.70. The patients with single infections had the highest incidence of CIN2+ (34.1%) with respect to those with multiple infections (10.6%).When we studied in the mHPV infection the prevalence of the combinations between the genotypes, we found that in mHPV16 infections, the combinations HPV16, 18 and HPV16, 31 were the most frequent (55.5%) in CIN3 lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that single HPV infections have a greater risk of developing SCC with respect to multiple infections. Multiple HPV infections are relevant only in the first phase of the lesion (CIN1-CIN2), while they are absent in carcinomas, where infections are of a single genotype. In particular, among multiple infections, HPV16 infection with 2 HR genotypes is associated significantly with CIN2 / CIN3 (21/30) and has 4 times greater risk of developing a high-grade lesion. Thus, it is probable that only specific combinations of HPV (HPV16,18 - HPV 16,31) can be associated with a clinically significant impact, while other combinations can simply be correlated because of a common infection or diagnostic method used. Therefore, multiple HPV16 infections with two high-risk genotypes is a major risk of CIN2/CIN3.