Prognostic value of p16‐INK4A protein in women with negative or CIN1 histology result: A follow‐up study

P16‐INK4A overexpression has been proposed as a prognostic marker to manage the follow up of women with positive cytology and/or HPV test but without high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). This study measures the relative risk (RR) of CIN2+ of p16 positive versus negative in these women. All the women referred to colposcopy from October 2008 to September 2010 with negative or CIN1 colposcopy‐guided biopsy were included in the study; women surgically treated or having a CIN2–3 were excluded. All baseline biopsies were dyed with hematoxylin and eosin and p16. Women were followed up according to screening protocols, with cytology or colposcopy at 6 or 12 months. CIN2/3 RRs and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were computed. Of 442 eligible women, 369 (83.5%) had at least one follow‐up episode. At baseline, 113 (30.6%) were CIN1, 248 (67.2%) negative, and 8 (2.2%) inadequate histology; 293 (79.4%) were p16‐negative, 64 (17.3%) p16 positive and 12 (3.2%) not valid. During follow up, we found ten CIN2 and three CIN3; of these, six were p16 positive (sensitivity 46%, 95% CI 19–75). The absolute risk among p16 positives was 9.4/100 compared to 1.7/100 of the p16 negatives (RR 5.5; 95% CI 1.7–17.4). The risk was also higher for CIN1 than for histologically negative women (RR 4.4; 95% CI 1.3–14.3). The RR for p16 in CIN1 did not change (RR 5.2; 95% CI 0.6–47.5). P16 overexpression is a good candidate for modulating follow‐up intensity after a negative colposcopy but is limited by its low prospective sensitivity.     

p16INK4A immunohistochemical staining and predictive value for progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1: A prospective study in China

p16^INK4A is strongly expressed in tissues diagnosed as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer in women infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), but few prospective studies have evaluated p16^INK4A as a marker for the risk of low‐grade CIN (CIN1) progression. We investigated the prevalence of p16^INK4A immunostaining by CIN grade and whether overexpression of p16^INK4A in CIN1 predicts future risk for high‐grade CIN in Chinese women. 6,557 Chinese women aged 30–49 years were screened from 2003 to 2005 using cytology and carcinogenic HPV test. Colposcopy was performed on women with any abnormal result. p16^INK4A Immunostaining was performed on biopsies from all women with CIN1, as well as randomly selected women with normal or CIN grade 2 and worse (CIN2+) biopsies. Women with CIN1 were followed up without treatment. Colposcopy was performed on all untreated women at a 2‐year interval. The prevalence of p16^INK4A staining was 2.7%, 42.7%, 75.5%, 79.6% and 100% among women with normal, CIN1, 2, 3 and cancer biopsies, respectively (p < 0.001). HPV positivity was strongly associated with p16^INK4A staining [odds ratios (OR) = 12.8; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 5.2–31.6]. p16^INK4A staining of CIN1 biopsies at baseline was associated with an increased risk of finding high‐grade CIN over 2 years of follow‐up (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 0.52–3.91). The two‐year cumulative incidence of CIN2+ for p16^INK4A positive women was higher at 10.71% than for p16^INK4A negative women at 1.30% (crude RR = 8.25, 95% CI: 1.02–66.62). p16^INK4A overexpression is strongly associated with grade of CIN and risk of progression to high‐grade CIN in women with low‐grade lesions.     

Evaluation of p16INK4a expression in ThinPrep cervical specimens with the CINtec p16INK4a assay

BACKGROUND.

The aim of this study was to examine p16^INK4a protein expression in ThinPrep (Cytyc Corporation, Marlborough, Mass) cervical specimens by using the CINtec p16^INK4a Cytology Kit (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). The ability of this assay to accurately identify underlying high‐grade lesions was assessed by using follow‐up biopsies and comparing these results with Hybrid Capture 2 (Digene, Gaithersburg, Md) high‐risk HPV (hc₂) results.

METHODS.

Three hundred ninety‐eight residual ThinPrep samples were collected, and histological follow‐up data were retrieved for abnormal cytology specimens. After preparation of a Papanicolaou‐stained slide, a second slide was processed in preparation for p16^INK4a immunostaining. High‐risk human papillomavirus testing (hc₂) was also performed.

RESULTS.

Of the 163 cytologically abnormal samples, 6‐month biopsy follow‐up data were available for 45% of the specimens. At initial blinded evaluation, 21 of the 26 cases with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II/III follow‐up were positive for p16^INK4a, yielding an overall diagnostic sensitivity of 81%; 29 of the 47 cases diagnosed as CIN I or less were p16^INK4a negative, yielding a diagnostic specificity of 62%. In comparison, the hc₂ test results indicated a diagnostic sensitivity of 100% with a diagnostic specificity of 15%. After review of selected cases with CIN II/III follow‐up, 25 of 26 slides were deemed to be positive for p16^INK4a, increasing the diagnostic sensitivity to 96%.

CONCLUSIONS.

The CINtec p16^INK4a Cytology Kit, in combination with ThinPrep cervical samples, allowed clear evaluation of p16^INK4a protein overexpression. Diagnostic specificity of the CINtec p16^INK4a assay was significantly improved relative to hc₂. To increase p16^INK4a immunostaining in abnormal cells, a modified kit version with improved staining performance has been developed and is currently being evaluated. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.     

Progression of Precancerous Cervical Lesion Predicted by p16 Protein Immunohistochemistry in Rajavithi Hospital

Objective: To assess the association of p16 immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in cervical squamous intraepitheliallesions (SIL) and progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 to CIN2+ or recurrence of CIN2+. Materialand Methods: A retrospective cohort study of women with newly diagnosed SIL from colposcopy-directed biopsy atRajavithi Hospital, 2013-2017. Pathologic specimens were reviewed and submitted to p16-IHC staining. Adjusted hazardratios (HR) of disease-free interval (DFI) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were carried out using the Cox proportionalhazard regression model. Results: A total of 187 women was recruited, 91 cases of positive p16-IHC staining and 96cases of negative staining. With the median follow-up time of 22 months, women with positive p16-IHC had significantlylower 1-year DFI than those with negative p16-IHC (86.8% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.006). Women with CIN 1 had 22.6% ofpositive p16-IHC, while those with CIN2-3 had 86.7%. From multivariate analysis, the positive p16-IHC and age >35 years were the significant prognostic factors of progression/recurrent CIN2+ (adjusted HR 5.33, 95%CI 1.77-16.01,p = 0.003; and adjusted HR 5.80, 95%CI 1.34-25.08, p = 0.019, respectively). From subgroup analysis, the positivep16-IHC was the significant prognostic factor in women with initial CIN1 (HR 5.29, 95%CI 1.18-23.76, p = 0.030), butwas not associated with prognosis in women with initial CIN 2-3 (HR 2.13, 95%CI 0.28-16.38, p = 0.468). Conclusion:Overexpression of p16 protein has the prognostic significance of SIL. Using p16-IHC may help stratify patients aslow-risk and high-risk groups to progression/recurrence CIN2+.     

Diagnostic accuracy of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The accurate diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV) causality in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) is likely to influence therapeutic decisions in affected patients in the near future. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry (IHC) to identify HPV‐induced OPSCC. We identified all studies that performed p16^INK4a IHC (index test) and HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection using an amplification‐based method (gold standard to indicate a transforming relevance of HPV) in OPSCC. Testing with one or more comparator tests (HPV DNA PCR, HPV DNA in situ hybridization (ISH) and p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing) was an optional criterion for inclusion. Among 1,636 retrieved studies 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of p16^INK4a IHC, HPV DNA PCR, HPV DNA ISH and p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing was 94% (95%‐confidence interval (CI) 91–97%), 98% (CI 94–100%), 85% (CI 76–92%) and 93% (CI 87–97%), respectively. The pooled specificity was 83% (CI 78–88%), 84% (CI 74–92%), 88% (CI 78–96%) and 96% (CI 89–100%), respectively. p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing was as sensitive as either p16^INK4a IHC or HPV DNA PCR alone but significantly more specific than either separate test. In conclusion, p16^INK4a IHC is highly sensitive but moderately specific to diagnose HPV‐transformed OPSCC when used as a single test. Combined p16^INK4a IHC and HPV DNA PCR testing significantly enhances specificity while maintaining high sensitivity. This diagnostic test combination thus represents an attractive testing strategy for the reliable diagnosis of HPV‐induced OPSCC in the clinical setting and may constitute an inclusion criterion for future therapeutic trials.     

Good performance of p16/ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for surveillance of women treated for high‐grade CIN

Women treated for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are at risk of recurrent CIN Grade 2 or worse (rCIN2+). Currently, posttreatment monitoring is performed using cytology or cytology/high‐risk (hr)HPV cotesting. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology (p16/Ki‐67) for posttreatment monitoring. Three hundred and twenty‐three women treated for high‐grade CIN in the SIMONATH study underwent close surveillance by cytology, hrHPV and DNA methylation marker testing up to 12 months posttreatment. Histological endpoints were ascertained by colposcopy with biopsy at 6 and/or 12 months. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐staining was performed on residual liquid‐based cytology samples obtained at, or shortly before biopsy collection. Clinical performance estimates of cytology, hrHPV, p16/Ki‐67 testing and combinations thereof for the detection of rCIN2+ were determined and compared to each other. Sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 for rCIN2+ (69.2%) was nonsignificantly lower than that of cytology (82.1%; ratio 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71–1.01), but significantly lower than that of hrHPV testing (84.6%; ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.99). Specificity of p16/Ki‐67 for rCIN2+ (90.4%) was significantly higher compared to both cytology (70.8%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19–1.37) and hrHPV testing (76.2%; ratio 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12–1.26). Overall, hrHPV testing showed very high sensitivity, along with a good specificity. When considering cotesting, combined p16/Ki‐67/hrHPV testing showed rCIN2+ sensitivity comparable to cytology/hrHPV cotesting (87.2% vs. 89.7%; ratio 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92–1.03), but with significantly increased specificity (74.2% vs. 58.1%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19–1.38). Thus, when considered in combination with hrHPV, p16/Ki‐67 might be an attractive approach for surveillance of women treated for high‐grade CIN.     

p16INK4a immunocytochemistry versus human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with minor cytologic abnormalities

The best method for identifying women who have minor cervical lesions that require diagnostic workup remains unclear. The authors of this report performed a meta‐analysis to assess the accuracy of cyclin‐dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16^INK4a) immunocytochemistry compared with high‐risk human papillomavirus DNA testing with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) to detect grade 2 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) and CIN3+ among women who had cervical cytology indicating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) or low‐grade cervical lesions (LSIL). A literature search was performed in 3 electronic databases to identify studies that were eligible for this meta‐analysis. Seventeen studies were included in the meta‐analysis. The pooled sensitivity of p16^INK4a to detect CIN2+ was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8%‐88.2%) and 83.8% (95% CI, 73.5%‐90.6%) in ASC‐US and LSIL cervical cytology, respectively, and the pooled specificities were 71% (95% CI, 65%‐76.4%) and 65.7% (95% CI, 54.2%‐75.6%), respectively. Eight studies provided both HC2 and p16^INK4a triage data. p16^INK4a and HC2 had similar sensitivity, and p16^INK4a has significantly higher specificity in the triage of women with ASC‐US (relative sensitivity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89‐1.01]; relative specificity, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.57‐2.12]). In the triage of LSIL, p16^INK4a had significantly lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared with HC2 (relative sensitivity, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81‐0.94]; relative specificity, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.99‐3.76]). The published literature indicated the improved accuracy of p16^INK4a compared with HC2 testing in the triage of women with ASC‐US. In LSIL triage, p16^INK4a was more specific but less sensitive. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Impact of utilizing p16INK4A immunohistochemistry on estimated performance of three cervical cancer screening tests

The histopathological diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2,3 (CIN 2,3) is subjective and prone to variability. In our study, we analyzed the impact of utilizing a biomarker (p16(INK4A)) together with histopathology to refine the "gold standard" utilized for evaluating the performance of 3 different cervical cancer screening tests: cervical cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Cervical biopsies from 2 South African cervical cancer screening studies originally diagnosed by a single pathologist were reevaluated by a second pathologist and a consensus pathology diagnosis obtained. Immunohistochemical staining for p16(INK4A) was then performed. The estimated sensitivity of some cervical cancer screening tests was markedly impacted by the criteria utilized to define CIN 2,3. Use of routine histopathology markedly underestimated the sensitivity of both conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing compared to an improved gold standard of consensus pathology and p16(INK4A) positivity. In contrast, routine histopathology overestimated the sensitivity of VIA. Our results demonstrate that refining the diagnosis of CIN 2,3 through the use of consensus pathology and immunohistochemical staining for p16(INK4A) has an important impact on measurement of the performance of cervical cancer screening tests. The sensitivity of screening tests such as HPV DNA testing and conventional cytology may be underestimated when an imperfect gold standard (routine histopathology) is used. In contrast, the sensitivity of other tests, such as VIA, may be overestimated with an imperfect gold standard.     

Molecular characterization of p16‐immunopositive but HPV DNA‐negative oropharyngeal carcinomas

Recent studies have reported that p16 protein overexpression qualifies as a surrogate marker identifying an oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). However, there is still a percentage of OPSCCs that are positive for p16 immunohistochemistry (p16 IHC) but lack HPV DNA. The objective of this study was to characterize this group at the molecular level by performing sensitive HPV DNA‐ and RNA‐based PCR methods and genetic profiling. All patients diagnosed with an OPSCC in the period 2000–2006 in two Dutch university medical centers were included (n = 841). The presence of HPV in a tumor sample was tested by p16 IHC followed by an HPV DNA GP5+/6+ PCR. p16 IHC scored positive in 195 samples, of which 161 were HPV DNA‐positive and 34 (17%) HPV DNA‐negative. In the latter group, a SPF₁₀‐LiPA25 assay, an HPV16 type‐specific E7 PCR and an E6 mRNA RT‐PCR were performed. Next, ten of these cases were further analyzed for loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of 15 microsatellite markers at chromosome arms 3p, 9p and 17p. Of the 34 p16‐positive but PCR‐negative OPSCCs, two samples tested positive by SPF₁₀ assay, HPV16 E7 PCR and HPV16 E6 mRNA RT‐PCR. Three samples tested positive by SPF₁₀ assay but negative by the HPV16‐specific assays. Nine of ten cases that were tested for LOH showed a genetic pattern comparable to that of HPV‐negative tumors. This study categorizes p16‐positive but HPV DNA‐negative OPSCCs as HPV‐negative tumors based on genetic profiling. This study highlights the importance of performing HPV testing in addition to p16 IHC for proper identification of HPV‐associated OPSCCs.     

p16INK4a is superior to high‐risk human papillomavirus testing in cervical cytology for the prediction of underlying high‐grade dysplasia

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of this study was to compare the clinical performance of an optimized and rigorously controlled immunocytochemical (ICC) assay for p16^INK4a to high‐risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as diagnostic adjuncts for cytology specimens from colposcopy patients.

METHODS:

The study included 403 cervical cytology specimens collected within 3 months of colposcopy. The colposcopic impression and cervical biopsy diagnosis served as the standards for correlation with cytological, p16^INK4a, and HPV data. p16^INK4a was evaluated using an immunoperoxidase‐based assay that was linear over 4 logs for the detection of HeLa‐spiked positive control cytology specimens, using a threshold for positive test results that was based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. HR‐HPV was detected by multiplex PCR using genotype‐specific primers.

RESULTS:

In all combined diagnostic categories (negative for intraepithelial lesion and malignancy, atypical glandular cells, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), the p16^INK4a ICC and HR‐HPV assays, respectively, had sensitivity of 81.7% and 83.3% (P = .81) and specificity of 78.1% and 50.9% (P < .001) for the detection of underlying ≥grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions on biopsy. Furthermore, the positive predictive value of p16^INK4a ICC was greater than that of HR‐HPV for patients with biopsies ≥CIN‐2 (41.2% and 24.2%, respectively, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

This p16^INK4a immunocytochemical assay has superior specificity but similar sensitivity to HR‐HPV testing to predict underlying high‐grade dysplastic lesions in patients who are referred for colposcopy. The determination of the overall performance characteristics of p16^INK4a immunocytochemistry, as an independent test or in combination with HPV testing in low‐risk screening populations, however, will require subsequent large‐scale prospective clinical trials. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

p16INK4a免疫细胞化学检测在筛查宫颈癌中的作用

目的 探讨p16^INK4a免疫细胞化学检测在筛查宫颈癌及其癌前病变中的作用。方法 选择220例宫颈液基细胞学剩余标本,制作液基薄片进行p16^INK4a 免疫细胞化学检测,随访组织活检结果,并与高危人乳头瘤病毒（HR—HPV）DNA检测结果进行对照。结果 p16^INK4a在宫颈细胞学诊断的鳞状细胞癌（SCC）、鳞状上皮内高度病变（HSIL）、鳞状上皮内低度病变（LSIL）、非典型鳞状细胞-小除外上皮内高度病变（ASC—H）和非典型鳞状细胞-不能明确意义（ASC—US）病例的阳性表达率分别为100．0％（7／7）、92．2％（107／116）、24．3％（17／70）、100．0％（14／14）和36．4％（4／11）。150例p16^INK4a阳性者中,111例有组织活检诊断,其中宫颈上皮内瘤变（CIN）2级及以上病变者97例（87．4％）;70例p16^INK4a阴性者中,18例有组织活检诊断,无一例CIN2及以上病变。p16^INK4a在CIN2及以上病变与在CIN1之间的阳性表达率差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,而HR-HPV DNA的阳性率在两者之间差异无统计学意义。结论 p16^INK4a在宫颈HSIL及以上病变中高表达,有利于高危病例的筛选。     

Diagnostic value of p16INK4A,Ki‐67, and human papillomavirus L1 capsid protein immunochemical staining on cell blocks from residual liquid‐based gynecologic cytology specimens

BACKGROUND:

This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability and role of cell block preparations in the diagnosis of neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions of the cervix and to improve the value of cell block preparations in diagnosing and predicting the prognosis of cervical lesions through immunostaining of p16INK4A (p16), Ki‐67, and human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 capsid protein (HPV L1).

METHODS:

In total, 138 specimens were diagnosed on liquid‐based cytology (LBC) and cell block preparations, and 63 specimens were subjected subsequently to tissue follow‐up and immunostaining for p16, Ki‐67, and HPV L1 on cell block sections.

RESULTS:

In 42 specimens that were diagnosed as low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on cell blocks, 38 specimens (90.5%) were confirmed by histopathologic reports, and there was slightly better than 81.6% agreement between LBC and tissue follow‐up. Immunointensity and cells that were positive for p16 were enhanced according to increased pathologic grade and differed statistically between cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (CIN‐1) and CIN‐2/CIN‐3 as well as SCC. The positive rates of HPV L1 decreased gradually according to the severity of cervical neoplasia, and HPV L1/p16 expression patterns were related to the severity of cervical lesions.

CONCLUSIONS:

The cell block preparation technique was complementary to LBC, and the authors concluded that the application of LBC combined with cell block preparations may improve the diagnostic accuracy of cytology. Immunostaining for p16 and Ki‐67 on cell block preparations can help to improve the diagnostic accuracy of HSIL and SCC. A combined expression pattern of p16 and HPV L1 may serve as a valuable index for predicting prognosis and follow‐up of cervical dysplastic lesions. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Triaging HPV‐positive women with normal cytology by p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology testing: Baseline and longitudinal data

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening results in a 2–5% lower specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to Pap cytology. To identify HPV‐positive women with CIN2+, we retrospectively evaluated the cross‐sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology participating in population‐based cervical screening. Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 847 of these women derived from the VUSA‐Screen study were dual‐stained for p16/Ki‐67. Cross‐sectional clinical performance in detecting CIN3 or worse (CIN3+), and CIN2+ was compared to that of baseline HPV genotyping. Moreover, 5‐year cumulative incidence risks (CIR) for CIN3+ (CIN2+) were determined. The sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for CIN3+ (CIN2+) was 73.3% (68.8%) with a specificity of 70.0% (72.8%). HPV16/18 genotyping showed a sensitivity for CIN3+ (CIN2+) of 46.7% (43.8%), with a specificity of 78.3% (79.4%). The 5‐year CIR for CIN3+ in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology was 6.9%. Testing these women with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology resulted in a significantly lower CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% (p = 0.017) in case of a negative test result. A negative HPV16/18 genotyping test result also led to a lower 5‐year CIN3+ CIR of 3.6%. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology detects more than 70% of underlying CIN3+ lesions in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology at baseline and is therefore suitable for triaging these women to colposcopy. Furthermore, the CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% after a negative dual‐stain result is significantly lower compared to the 5‐year CIR of 6.9% in women without p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology triage.     

p16INK4A表达与宫颈癌患者临床病理特征及预后的关系

目的 探讨p16INK4A(p16)蛋白在宫颈癌和宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)中的表达及其与临床病理特征和预后的相关性.方法 选取宫颈活检和手术切除的宫颈癌患者的宫颈标本100例,CIN组织80例以及正常宫颈组织50例,采用免疫组织化学法对p16蛋白的表达进行检测,并对所得结果进行统计分析.结果 p16在宫颈癌组织、CIN组织与正常宫颈组织中的阳性表达率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);p16蛋白的表达强度和阳性表达率与宫颈病变程度呈正相关(r=0.545,P<0.05);p16蛋白阳性表达与宫颈癌的分化程度及淋巴结转移情况有关(P<0.05);p16阳性表达患者的3年生存率低于p16阴性表达患者(P<0.05).结论 p16蛋白表达与宫颈癌的发生、发展及不良预后有关,可以作为判断宫颈癌生物学行为和预后评价的指标.     

Evaluation of a new p16(INK4A) ELISA test and a high-risk HPV DNA test for cervical cancer screening: results from proof-of-concept study

p16(INK4a), a cell cycle regulation protein, accumulates in abnormal epithelial cells infected with high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV). In immunostaining studies, p16(INK4a) has shown potential as a marker of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cervical cancer. To evaluate its potential use in cervical cancer screening, we conducted a feasibility study to compare the performance of a new enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) for p16(INK4a) (mtm laboratories, Heidelberg, Germany) to that of the Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2) test for high-risk HPV DNA for the detection of CIN3. Three hundred and nineteen women were referred from Western Washington Planned Parenthood clinics for colposcopy examination and cervical biopsy because of abnormal Pap test results. Cervical samples were obtained from study participants for p16(INK4a) ELISA, liquid-based cytology and hc2. The order (first and second) for obtaining samples for cervical cytology and p16(INK4a) ELISA changed with every other subject. Concentrations of p16(INK4a) protein were higher when the sample was taken before the cytology. The sensitivity of p16(INK4a) ELISA (concentration > or = 8 units/ml) taken as first sample was 90.0% for CIN3, and the sensitivity of HC2 taken as a second sample was 85%. In the same group, the specificity of p16(INK4a) ELISA (46.9%) was slightly better than hc2 (35.4%) Results from this proof-of-concept study suggest that p16(INK4a) ELISA has a similar sensitivity and slightly better specificity for CIN3 compared to hc2. These findings support proceeding with a larger study with samples from a population of women presenting for routine cytology screening.     

Evaluation of cervical cone biopsies for coexpression of p16INK4a and Ki-67 in epithelial cells

Diffuse overexpression of p16(INK4a) in basal and parabasal cells of cervical epithelium is a hallmark of human papillomavirus-mediated transformation. Focal p16(INK4a) expression is occasionally observed in nondysplastic epithelium. In normal cells, expression of p16(INK4a) triggers cell cycle arrest. However, cells undergoing transformation in intraepithelial lesions actively proliferate. To prove that the different expression patterns of p16(INK4a) , i.e., focal versus diffuse, reflect biologically different entities, we hypothesized that p16(INK4a) -positive cells in epithelia displaying focal p16(INK4a) expression pattern do not coexpress proliferation-associated Ki-67 protein, while p16(INK4a) -positive cells in lesions with diffuse p16(INK4a) expression may do. A total of 138 cervical cone biopsies were stained for the expression of p16(INK4a) and Ki-67 using a primary antibody cocktail. All metaplastic lesions (n = 21) displayed focal staining for p16(INK4a) , and in all of these lesions p16(INK4a) -positive cells were found to be negative for Ki-67 expression. Diffuse expression of p16(INK4a) was observed in 12/21 (57.1%) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 lesions, all of them simultaneously showed Ki-67 immunoreactivity in a large proportion of p16(INK4a) -positive cells. Seventeen of 23 (73.9%) CIN2 lesions and all 27 (100%) CIN3/carcinoma in situ (CIS) as well as all 46 (100%) carcinoma cases displayed diffuse and combined expression of p16(INK4a) and Ki-67. Coexpression of Ki-67 and p16(INK4a) in the same cell is entirely restricted to cervical lesions displaying diffuse p16(INK4a) expression, whereas in lesions with focal p16(INK4a) expression, p16(INK4a) -expressing cells are negative for Ki-67. Thus, diffuse expression of p16(INK4a) reflects lesions with proliferation-competent cells, while p16(INK4a) -expressing cells associated with focal expression patterns are cell cycle arrested.     

p16INK4A 和bcl-2 蛋白在CIN 和宫颈鳞癌中的表达

 目的 探讨p16INK4A和bcl-2在宫颈上皮内瘤（CIN）和宫颈鳞癌的表达状态及其在病理诊断中的意义。方法 采用免疫组化SP法对39例CIN、24例浸润性宫颈鳞癌和20例正常官颈组织进行p16INK4A和bck2检测。结果 正常宫颈组织不表达p16INK4A，CINⅠ阳性表达率很低并为局灶表达，但几乎所有的CINⅡ／Ⅲ和浸润性宫颈鳞癌均弥漫大量表达p16INK4A。正常宫颈组织只有基底细胞层表达bcl-2蛋白，CINⅢ和Ⅰ～Ⅱ期浸润癌bcl-2阳性细胞弥漫分布，阳性袁达率分别为53．8％和57．1％。Ⅲ～Ⅳ期浸润癌bcl-2阳性率下降，阳性细胞局限。结论 p16INK4A过表达与宫颈鳞癌恶性特性密切相关，检测p16INK4A有助于及时发现高级别CIN和宫颈鳞癌。     

Expression of the p16INK4a and Ki-67 in relation to the grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and high-risk human papillomavirus infection

Objective

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the expression of p16^INK4a (referred as to p16) and Ki-67 in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and the correlation between high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the above biomarkers.

Methods

We analyzed 31 patients who were diagnosed with CIN at Kwandong University Myongji Hospital from October 2006 to September 2007. CIN specimens (CIN1, 12; CIN2, 6; CIN3, 13) were obtained by colposcopy-directed biopsy (CDB) or loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP). The expressions of p16 and Ki-67 were evaluated by immunohistochemical methods with antibodies to p16 and Ki67. The immunohistochemical staining results were classified into four grades: 0, 1, 2 and 3. HPV genotyping or Hybrid Capture-II test was used to detect high-risk HPV.

Results

The expression of p16 (p<0.001) and Ki-67 (p=0.003) were positively associated with CIN grade. p16 expressions increased significantly with high-risk HPV infection (p=0.014), especially HPV type 16 and 58. Ki-67 expression was not related with high-risk HPV. There was positive correlation between the expression of the p16 and Ki-67 (p=0.007).

Conclusion

CIN grade were positively related to the expression of p16 and Ki-67. p16 expressions of high-risk HPV specimens significantly increased more than Ki-67. Therefore, in the diagnosis of CIN and high-risk HPV infection, p16 can be a useful biomarker.     

p16INK4a在宫颈液基细胞学辅助筛查中的标记意义

目的 评价p16INK4a在宫颈液基细胞学检查中的标记意义.方法 收集74例宫颈外口和颈管的脱落细胞标本,分别进行液基细胞学检测和p16INK4a免疫细胞化学染色,并应用杂交捕获二代法检测高危人乳头瘤病毒(HR-HPV)感染.结果 74例标本中,细胞学诊断未见癌细胞或癌前病变细胞(阴性)10例,意义不明的不典型鳞状细胞(ASC-US)15例,鳞状上皮内低度病变(LSIL)28例,不除外上皮内高度病变的不典型鳞状细胞(ASC-H)5例,鳞状上皮内高度病变(HSIL)11例,鳞状细胞癌(SCC)5例.各级别病变中,HR-HPV阳性者分别为1、4、3、9、7和5例,p16INK4a免疫细胞化学染色阳性者分别为2、5、3、8、9和5例.随着宫颈病变级别的上升,HR-HPV和p16INK4a免疫细胞化学染色阳性率均增高.结论 p16INK4a免疫细胞化学染色增强了对不典型细胞的区分能力,可以提高宫颈癌筛查的准确性.