Triage options to manage high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: A population-based cross-sectional study from rural China

Improvement in managing HPV-positive women is urgently needed. Based on a population-based study which included 2112 women aged 49 to 69 from Shanxi, China, we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of multiple triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC), p16^INK4a, viral load and partial genotyping, as a single or combined strategy for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or higher (CIN2+/CIN3+) in women who tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). Among 452 HC2-positive women, the test positivity of LBC (ASC-US+), p16^INK4a, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 were 39.6%, 38.5%, 18.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Compared to LBC (ASC-US+) triage, a single triage strategies using p16^INK4a or extended genotyping (SureX HPV16/18/31/33/45) achieved comparable sensitivity (relative sensitivity: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.26 and 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.22) and specificity (relative specificity: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14 and 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for CIN3+. Viral load triage using a ≥50 RLU/CO cut-point also yielded similar results with LBC (ASC-US+). Among combined triage strategies, HPV16/18 genotyping with reflex p16^INK4a showed higher sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than LBC (ASC-US+) for CIN3+ detection, however, the differences were not statistically significant. Of note, after a negative result by p16^INK4a or LBC among HPV16/18 negative women, the posttest probability of CIN3+ was lower than 1%. Our study suggested that p16^INK4a, extended genotyping and increased viral load cut-point could be promising alternatives to cytology triage. Combined triage algorithms of HPV16/18 with reflex p16^INK4a or cytology, if negative, are associated with the substantial low posttest risk sufficient to release women to next screening round.     

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 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.     

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.     

Predicting the progression of cervical precursor lesions by human papillomavirus genotyping: A prospective cohort study

Only a subset of cervical precursor lesions progress to cervical cancer and because of the lack of the predictive markers, it cannot be ascertained which lesions will progress or not. To estimate the risk of disease progression associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes, we followed 570 Japanese women with cytological LSIL (low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and histological CIN (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) grade 1–2 lesions (479 CIN 1; 91 CIN 2) at 3 to 4 month intervals for a mean follow‐up period of 39.1 months. At entry, we detected HPV DNA in cervical samples by polymerase chain reaction‐based methodology. Over the period of follow‐up period, 46 lesions progressed to CIN 3 while 362 regressed to normal cytology. Women with multiple HPV infections were more likely to have persistent lesions (hazard ratio [HR] for regression, 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–1.02; p = 0.07); however, multiple infections did not increase the risk of progression (HR for progression, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.37–2.94; p = 0.94). After adjusting for CIN grade and women's age, HRs for progression to CIN 3 (vs. women with low‐risk types or negative for HPV DNA) varied markedly by HPV genotype: type 16 (11.1, 95% CI: 1.39–88.3); 18 (14.1, 0.65–306); 31 (24.7, 2.51–243); 33 (20.3, 1.78–231); 35 (13.7, 0.75–251); 52 (11.6, 1.45–93.3); 58 (8.85, 1.01–77.6); other high‐risk types (4.04, 0.47–34.7). HPV 45 was not detected in our study subjects. The cumulative probability of CIN 3 within 5 years was 20.5% for HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 52 and 58; 6.0% for other high‐risk types; 1.7% for low‐risk types (p = 0.0001). In conclusion, type‐specific HPV testing for women with LSIL/CIN 1–2 lesions is useful for identifying populations at increased or decreased risk of disease progression.     

Immunocytochemical colocalization of P16(INK4a) and Ki-67 predicts CIN2/3 and AIS/adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND:

Although previous studies have shown that p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 are sensitive and specific markers for high‐grade lesions (≥CIN2) on cervical biopsies, limited information is available regarding the performance of a dual‐staining approach as a diagnostic adjunct in cervical cytology. We evaluated a dual p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 immunocytochemistry (ICC) assay to determine its sensitivity and specificity versus that of high‐risk HPV (HR‐HPV) in a US‐based pilot cytology study.

METHODS:

ThinPrep specimens from 122 cervical cytology specimens encompassing 23 negative (NILM), 20 ASC‐US, 22 LSIL, 17 ASCH, 22 HSIL, and 18 AGC cases were processed for multiplexed ICC staining using a CINtec Plus Kit. Dual‐positive assay results were defined based on the detection of 1 or more epithelial cells that were stained for both p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 without regard to cellular morphology. HR‐HPV testing was performed by multiplex PCR with capillary electrophoresis genotyping.

RESULTS:

Dual staining for p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 was frequently detected in HSIL and AGC but was rarely detected in NILM cases. The HR‐HPV assay showed a sensitivity of 76.2% and a specificity of 55.8% for the detection of clinically significant cervical squamous or endometrial lesions. In contrast, the colocalization of p16^INK4a plus Ki‐67 maintained a high sensitivity of 81.8% and improved specificity to 81.8% for biopsy‐confirmed CIN2/3, endocervical adenocarcinoma, or endometrial adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS:

Dual staining for p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 immunocytochemistry dramatically increased specificity and maintained high‐level sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN2/3 or glandular lesions compared with PCR‐based testing for HR‐HPV. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

Human papillomavirus type specific risk of progression and remission during long‐term follow‐up of equivocal and low‐grade HPV‐positive cervical smears

The prevalence of clinically relevant HPV types and their specific risk for progression and regression in women with atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASCUS) and low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) were studied in a routine screening population. A 4‐year cohort of women (n = 820) with ASCUS/LSIL and a positive HPV test in triage were followed for 6–9 years. The progression risks for CIN2+/CIN3+ were determined for single (71.2%) and multiple HPV infections (28.8%). The CIN2+ progression risk for all HPV 16, all HPV 35, single HPV 16 and single HPV 35 infections were 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 64.4% (95% CI: 50.4–78.4), 63.8% (95% CI: 56.2–71.4) and 73.7% (95% CI: 53.9–93.5), respectively. Based on CIN2+ progression risks four main groups were defined; the HPV 16 group, the HPV 31/33/35 group, the HPV 18/45/51/52 group and the HPV 39/56/58/59/66/68 group with progression risks of 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 62.1% (95% CI: 54.8–69.4), 52.6 (95% CI: 45.9–59.3) and 39.5 (95% CI: 33.0–46.0), respectively. In multivariate analyses, women in the age group 40–49 years had an increased risk of CIN2+ progression. As for CIN3+, HPV 16 had a higher progression risk than other HPV risk groups (p < 0.05). In multiple infections only HPV 16 had a significant additive CIN3+ progression risk (p < 0.05) as compared to other HPV risk groups. In summary, HPV types 16 and 35, including the HPV risk group 31/33/35, had a similar CIN2+ progression risk, but only HPV 16 had a higher risk for CIN3+ progression.     

P16INK4A immunostaining is a strong indicator for high‐risk‐HPV‐associated oropharyngeal carcinomas and dysplasias,but is unreliable to predict low‐risk‐HPV‐infection in head and neck papillomas and laryngeal dysplasias

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a risk factor for the development of benign and malignant mucosal head and neck lesions. P16^INK4A is often used as a surrogate marker for HPV‐infection, although there is still controversy with respect its reliability. Our aim was to determine if p16^INK4A overexpression can accurately predict both high‐risk and low‐risk‐HPV‐presence in (pre)malignant and benign head and neck lesions. P16^INK4A immunohistochemistry was performed on paraffin‐embedded tissue sections of 162 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC), 14 tonsillar and 23 laryngeal dysplasias, and 20 tonsillar and 27 laryngeal papillomas. PCR, enzyme‐immunoassay and FISH analysis were used to assess HPV‐presence and type. Of the 162 OPSCC and 14 tonsillar dysplasias, 51 (31%) and 10 (71%) were HPV16‐positive, respectively. All tonsillar papillomas were HPV‐negative and four laryngeal dysplasias and 26 laryngeal papillomas were positive for HPV6 or ?11. P16^INK4A immunohistochemistry revealed a strong nuclear and cytoplasmic staining in 50 out of 51 HPV16‐positive and 5 out of 111 HPV‐negative OPSCC (p < 0.0001) and in all HPV16‐positive tonsillar dysplasias, whereas highly variable staining patterns were detected in the papillomas and laryngeal dysplasias, irrespective of the HPV‐status. In addition, the latter lesions generally showed a higher nuclear than cytoplasmic p16^INK4A immunostaining intensity. In conclusion, our data show that strong nuclear and cytoplasmic p16^INK4A overexpression is a reliable surrogate indicator for HPV16 in OPSCC and (adjacent) dysplasias. For HPV6 or ?11‐positive and HPV‐negative benign and premalignant lesions of the tonsil and larynx, however, p16^INK4A immunostaining is highly variable and cannot be recommended to predict HPV‐presence.     

p16INK4a immunohistochemistry is a promising biomarker to predict the outcome of low grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: comparison study with HPV genotyping

Objective

In cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry has been reported to be a useful diagnostic biomarker. However, limited information is available about the association between the p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry and the outcomes of CIN. Here, we report p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry as an effective biomarker to predict the outcomes of CIN.

Methods

p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry was performed in patients with CIN from January 2000 to August 2009. Among these patients, we have performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records to evaluate the outcome of CIN 1-2 and performed statistical analysis to determine the correlation between p16^INK4a expression and the outcomes. We also performed HPV genotyping and analyzed the relation between the infecting human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype and the outcomes.

Results

A total of 244 patients, including 82 with CIN 1, 60 with CIN 2, and 102 with CIN 3, were examined. The rate of p16^INK4a overexpression increased with increasing CIN grade, 20.7% for CIN 1, 80.0% for CIN 2, and 89.2% for CIN 3, with significant differences between CIN 1 and CIN 2-3 group. In the 131 CIN 1-2 patients, the progression rate was significantly higher for the patients showing p16^INK4a overexpression than for those not showing p16^INK4a overexpression (p=0.005); the regression rate was also found to be significantly lower for the patients showing p16^INK4a overexpression (p=0.003). High-risk HPV genotypes were detected in 73 patients (73.7%). Both progression and regression rates were not significantly different between the high-risk HPV-positive and HPV-negative groups (p=0.401 and p=0.381, respectively).

Conclusion

p16^INK4a overexpression was correlated with the outcome of CIN 1-2, and p16^INK4a is considered to be a superior biomarker for predicting the outcome of CIN 1-2 compared with HPV genotyping.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus testing strategies for triage of women referred with low-grade cytological abnormalities

AimTo compare triage strategies using different human papillomavirus (HPV) consensus and genotyping tests and a p16^INK4a test.Methods1228 women referred with a borderline or single mildly dyskaryotic smear. Samples were taken at colposcopy using PreservCyt. Tests included Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer, APTIMA and p16^INK4a. Results were based on the worst histology within 9 months.Results97/1228 (7.9%) women had CIN3+ (203/1228 (17%) CIN2+). HPV testing alone using Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800 or APTIMA had a sensitivity for CIN3+ ranging from 99.0% to 100.0% and specificity for <CIN2 from 23.3% to 34.7%. p16^INK4a had a sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 50.7%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 73.2%. Testing for HPV type 16 only had sensitivities ranging from 66.0% to 75.5% and specificities from 81.3% to 87.6%. Dual testing with HPV type 16 combined with p16^INK4a gave a high sensitivity for CIN3+ (78.7% to 98.0%) and specificity for <CIN2 of 58.6% to 81.5%.ConclusionsTriage with sensitive HPV testing assays can substantially reduce the number of unnecessary referrals in women with low grade cytology with virtually no loss of sensitivity. Even greater gains can be made if p16 and type 16 are used, but some cases of CIN2 will be missed. In both cases short term surveillance will be needed.     

Association of antibody to E2 protein of human papillomavirus and p16<Superscript>INK4A</Superscript> with progression of HPV-infected cervical lesions

Human papillomavirus (HPV) E2 and L1 proteins are expressed in cervical cells during the lytic stage of infection. Overexpression of p16^INK4A is a biomarker of HPV-associated cervical neoplasia. This study investigated antibodies to HPV16 E2, HPV16 L1, and p16^INK4A in sera from women with no squamous intraepithelial lesion (No-SIL) of the cervix, low-grade SIL, high-grade SIL, and cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). HPV DNA was detected by polymerase chain reaction. Anti-E2, -L1, and -p16^INK4A antibodies in sera were determined by western blot. Among 116 samples, 69 (60%) were HPV DNA-positive. Percentages seropositive for anti-E2, -L1, and -p16^INK4A antibodies were 39.6, 22.4, and 23.3%, respectively. Anti-E2 antibody was significantly correlated with HPV DNA-positive cases. Eighty-seven women (75%) were regarded as infected with HPV, having at least one positive result from HPV DNA, L1, or E2 antibody. Antibody to p16^INK4A was associated with HPV infection (odds?=?5.444, 95% CI 1.203–24.629, P?=?0.028) and precancerous cervical lesions (odds?=?5.132, 95% CI 1.604–16.415, P?=?0.006). Interestingly, the concurrent detection of anti-E2 and -p16^INK4A antibodies was significantly associated with HPV infection (odds?=?1.382, 95% CI 1.228–1.555, P?=?0.044). These antibodies might be good candidate biomarkers for monitoring HPV-associated cervical lesion development to cancer.     

p16INK4A immunohistochemical staining may be helpful in distinguishing branchial cleft cysts from cystic squamous cell carcinomas originating in the oropharynx

BACKGROUND:

We investigated p16^INK4A expression in branchial cleft cysts and its utility in distinguishing branchial cleft cysts from metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs).

METHODS:

A study set comprising 41 resections (15 SCC and 26 branchial cleft cysts) and a test set of 15 FNABs (11 SCC and 4 branchial cleft cysts) were analyzed with p16^INK4A immunohistochemistry and human papillomavirus (HPV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/pyrosequencing. Cases with discrepant p16^INK4A and PCR/pyrosequencing results were further evaluated with HPV in situ hybridization (ISH). SCCs were divided into keratinizing SCC and nonkeratinizing SCC groups and site of origin.

RESULTS:

Metastatic oropharyngeal nonkeratinizing SCC in the study set exhibited diffuse, strong p16^INK4A (7 of 7) and HPV16 DNA positivity (6 of 6), while keratinizing SCC from the larynx and oral cavity was negative for p16^INK4A. p16^INK4A reactivity in the branchial cleft cyst study set was characterized by focal, strong staining (6 of 21) involving the superficial squamous epithelium. HPV DNA was identified in 7 of 19 branchial cleft cyst study set cases by PCR/pyrosequencing, but these cases were negative by HPV ISH. In the test set, oropharyngeal nonkeratinizing SCC exhibited diffuse, strong p16^INK4A (3 of 3) and HPV16 DNA (2 of 2), while metastatic keratinizing SCC was negative for p16^INK4A and HPV DNA. All 4 FNABs of branchial cleft cysts were negative for p16^INK4A. Diffuse, strong p16^INK4A correlated with oropharyngeal origin (P = .001) and nonkeratinizing morphology (P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Branchial cleft cysts can exhibit focal strong reactivity limited to the superficial squamous epithelium and glandular epithelium. Although p16^INK4A immunohistochemistry may be helpful in distinguishing oropharyngeal nonkeratinizing SCC from branchial cleft cysts in FNAB specimens, it is not helpful in cases of keratinizing SCC because these cases are typically negative for p16^INK4A. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Human papillomavirus mRNA and DNA testing in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: A prospective cohort study

In this prospective cohort study, we compared the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA and DNA testing of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) during cervical cancer screening. Using a nationwide Danish pathology register, we identified women aged 30–65 years with ASC‐US during 2005–2011 who were tested for HPV16/18/31/33/45 mRNA using PreTect HPV‐Proofer (n = 3,226) or for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) DNA using Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) (n = 9,405) or Linear Array HPV‐Genotyping test (LA) (n = 1,533). Women with ≥1 subsequent examination in the register (n = 13,729) were followed for up to 9.5 years for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer. After 3 years' follow‐up, mRNA testing had higher specificity for CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) than HC2 testing (88.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 86.8–89.6%] versus 59.3% [95% CI: 58.1–60.4%]) and higher positive predictive value (PPV) (38.2% [95% CI: 33.8%–43.1%] versus 19.5% [95% CI: 17.8–20.9%]). However, the sensitivity of mRNA testing was lower than that of HC2 testing (66.7% [95% CI: 59.3–74.5%] versus 97.0% [95% CI: 95.5–98.4%]), and women testing mRNA negative had higher 3‐year risk for CIN3+ than those testing HC2 negative (3.2% [95% CI: 2.2–4.2%] versus 0.5% [95% CI: 0.3–0.7%]). Patterns were similar after 18 months and 5 years'; follow‐up; for CIN2+ and cancer as outcomes; across all age groups; and when comparing mRNA testing to hrHPV DNA testing using LA. In conclusion, the HPV16/18/31/33/45 mRNA test is not optimal for ASC‐US triage due to its low sensitivity and the substantial risk for precancer following a negative test.     

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.     

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.     

A DNA methylation classifier of cervical precancer based on human papillomavirus and human genes

Testing for high‐risk (hr) types of human papillomavirus (HPV) is highly sensitive as a screening test of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic (CIN2/3) disease, the precursor of cervical cancer. However, it has a relatively low specificity. Our objective was to develop a prediction rule with a higher specificity, using combinations of human and HPV DNA methylation. Exfoliated cervical specimens from colposcopy‐referral cohorts in London were analyzed for DNA methylation levels by pyrosequencing in the L1 and L2 regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and human genes EPB41L3, DPYS and MAL. Samples from 1,493 hrHPV‐positive women were assessed and of these 556 were found to have CIN2/3 at biopsy; 556 tested positive for HPV16 (323 CIN2/3), 201 for HPV18 (73 CIN2/3) and 202 for HPV31 (98 CIN2/3). The prediction rule included EPB41L3 and HPV and had area under curve 0.80 (95% CI 0.78–0.82). For 90% sensitivity, specificity was 36% (33–40) and positive predictive value (PPV) was 46% (43–48). By HPV type, 90% sensitivity corresponded to the following specificities and PPV, respectively: HPV16, 38% (32–45) and 67% (63–71); HPV18, 53% (45–62) and 52% (45–59); HPV31, 39% (31–49) and 58% (51–65); HPV16, 18 or 31, 44% (40–49) and 62% (59–65) and other hrHPV 17% (14–21) and 21% (18–24). We conclude that a methylation assay in hrHPV‐positive women might improve PPV with minimal sensitivity loss.     

Evaluation of p16INK4a/Ki‐67 dual stain in comparison with an mRNA human papillomavirus test on liquid‐based cytology samples with low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

BACKGROUND:

The objective of the current study was to investigate the clinical performance of detecting high‐grade lesions with the CINtec PLUS p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 dual stain and the APTIMA human papillomavirus (HPV) Assay in a cohort of women with low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology. The authors also assessed the reproducibility of the evaluation of immunocytochemical staining.

METHODS:

The 2 tests were performed on liquid‐based residual material from 469 women with LSILs. The samples had at least 5 years of follow‐up and the gold standard used was high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+) proven on histology.

RESULTS:

Approximately 69% of all the women included in the study had a positive test for HPV mRNA and 56% was positive for the dual stain. The 2 tests demonstrated high sensitivities. When examining the specificities, the APTIMA HPV Assay performed with significantly lower values than the CINtec PLUS test. For patients with CIN2+, the APTIMA HPV Assay had a specificity of 36.1% versus 51.3% for the CINtec PLUS test, and for women with CIN3+, the specificity was 33.8% versus 48.2%, respectively. The difference was even more pronounced when analyzing women aged < 30 years separately. The kappa values between the 3 observers in scoring the dual stain ranged from 0.43 to 0.49 and improved in a second evaluation round to values ranging from 0.50 to 0.66.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CINtec PLUS p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 dual‐staining test in LSIL cytology samples demonstrated high sensitivity that was similar to that of the APTIMA HPV Assay in the detection of underlying high‐grade disease but with enhanced specificity, especially among women aged < 30 years. The kappa value for the evaluation of the CINtec PLUS dual‐staining test was moderate but could be improved through training. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Human papillomavirus,p16INK4A,and Ki-67 in relation to clinicopathological variables and survival in primary carcinoma of the vagina

Background:

This study aimed to determine human papillomavirus (HPV) status and to investigate p16^INK4A and Ki-67 expression and their correlation with clinical parameters and survival in women with primary carcinoma of the vagina (PCV).

Methods:

The presence of HPV DNA was evaluated by PCR. Genotyping was performed by Luminex in 68 short-term (⩽2 years) and long-term (⩾8 years) PCV survivors. p16^INK4A and Ki-67 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry.

Results:

Human papillomavirus DNA was detected in 43% of patients, the majority (63%) of whom were HPV16 positive. High p16^INK4A expression was significantly correlated with low histopathological grade (P=0.004), HPV positivity (P=0.032), and long-term survival (P=0.045). High Ki-67 expression was negatively correlated with histopathological grade (P<0.001) and tumour size (P=0.047). There was an association between HPV positivity and low histopathological grade, but not between HPV positivity and survival.

Conclusion:

High p16^INK4A expression was associated with long-term survival, but the only independent predictors for survival were tumour size and histopathological grade. Our results indicate that p16^INK4A and Ki-67 expression might be useful in tumour grading, and that it might be possible to use p16^INK4A expression as a marker for HPV positivity, but this has to be further elucidated.     

Progression of HPV infection to detectable cervical lesions or clearance in adult women: Analysis of the control arm of the VIVIANE study

The control arm of the phase III VIVIANE (Human PapillomaVIrus: Vaccine Immunogenicity ANd Efficacy; NCT00294047) study in women >25 years was studied to assess risk of progression from cervical HPV infection to detectable cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The risk of detecting CIN associated with the same HPV type as the reference infection was analysed using Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox models. Infections were categorised depending upon persistence as 6‐month persistent infection (6MPI) or infection of any duration. The 4‐year interim analysis included 2,838 women, of whom 1,073 (37.8%) experienced 2,615 infections of any duration and 708 (24.9%) experienced 1,130 6MPIs. Infection with oncogenic HPV types significantly increased the risk of detecting CIN grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) versus non‐oncogenic types. For 6MPI, the highest risk was associated with HPV‐33 (hazard ratio [HR]: 31.9 [8.3–122.2, p < 0.0001]). The next highest risk was with HPV‐16 (21.1 [6.3–70.0], p < 0.0001). Similar findings were seen for infections of any duration. Significant risk was also observed for HPV‐18, HPV‐31, and HPV‐45. Concomitant HPV infection or CIN grade 1 or greater associated with a different oncogenic HPV type increased risk. Most women (79.3%) with an HPV infection at baseline cleared detectable infections of any duration, and 69.9% cleared a 6MPI. The risk of progression of HPV infection to CIN2+ in women >25 years in this study was similar to that in women 15–25 years in PATRICIA.     

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.