Literature DB >> 12409727

Evaluation of MIB-1-positive cell clusters as a diagnostic marker for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Arnold-Jan Kruse1, Jan P A Baak, Tove Helliesen, Kjell H Kjellevold, Marco G W Bol, Emiel A M Janssen.   

Abstract

The objects of the study were to evaluate MIB-1-positive cell clusters (MIB-C) for distinguishing normal, reactive, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) biopsies and to determine possible pitfalls. Seventy-seven consecutive cervical specimens routinely diagnosed (Dx_orig) as CIN 1 or 2, or no-CIN, were revised independently by two expert gynecopathologists. MIB-1 staining and oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) assessment (by polymerase chain reaction) were performed. Independent diagnoses (plus oncogenic HPV status, in case of disagreement between the experts) were used to obtain a final diagnosis (Dx_final) and compared with MIB-C. Four of the 27 (15%) Dx_final = normal were HPV positive. Agreement between the gynecopathologists was 72 of 77 (94%). There were 30 (39%) discrepancies between Dx_orig and Dx_final (23 = 30% downgrades and 7 = 9% upgrades). All 23 downgrades were HPV negative and all seven upgrades were HPV positive. Overall agreement between Dx_orig and MIB-C was 73%, and with Dx_final 99%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of MIB-C were very high without false negatives. Tangential cutting of MIB-1-positive parabasal cells and inflammatory cells can erroneously be overdiagnosed as a MIB-C. One single false positive of the 48 non-CIN cases (an immature squamous metaplasia) showed a special, easily recognizable MIB-1 pattern, different from CIN because the MIB-1 staining in the nuclei is not diffuse (as in CIN) but clumped. Moreover, positive nuclei are somewhat less densely packed than in CIN. When tangentially cut parabasal cells and inflammatory cells are carefully excluded, MIB-C is a strong diagnostic adjunct in distinguishing CIN from normal or benign cervical squamoepithelial lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12409727     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200211000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  5 in total

Review 1.  Our approach to squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  Alexandra N Kalof; Kumarasen Cooper
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-10-17       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 2.  Dynamic behavioural interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with molecular biomarkers.

Authors:  J P A Baak; A-J Kruse; S J Robboy; E A M Janssen; B van Diermen; I Skaland
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-05-05       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  [Diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasias].

Authors:  C Rosamilia; G Feichter; A Tzankov; E C Obermann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 4.  Cervical Pre-cancers: Biopsy and Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Meherbano Kamal
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.345

5.  Evaluation of HPV infection and smoking status impacts on cell proliferation in epithelial layers of cervical neoplasia.

Authors:  Martial Guillaud; Timon P H Buys; Anita Carraro; Jagoda Korbelik; Michele Follen; Michael Scheurer; Karen Adler Storthz; Dirk van Niekerk; Calum E MacAulay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.