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.
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.
Authors: Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Marc Arbyn; Alexandros Sotiriadis; Emmanuel Diakomanolis; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; George Koliopoulos; George Makrydimas; Jovan Tofoski; Dimitrios H Roukos Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Conceição Queiroz; Tânia Correia Silva; Venâncio A F Alves; Luisa L Villa; Maria Cecília Costa; Ana Gabriela Travassos; José Bouzas Araújo Filho; Eduardo Studart; Tatiana Cheto; Luiz Antonio R de Freitas Journal: Pathol Res Pract Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Qi Zhang; Louise Kuhn; Lynette A Denny; Michelle De Souza; Sylvia Taylor; Thomas C Wright Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Christine Bergeron; Frederic Cas; Svetlana Vinokurova; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Branca; M Ciotti; D Santini; L Di Bonito; C Giorgi; A Benedetto; P Paba; C Favalli; S Costa; A Agarossi; M Alderisio; K Syrjänen Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Sophia S Wang; Marcus Trunk; Mark Schiffman; Rolando Herrero; Mark E Sherman; Robert D Burk; Allan Hildesheim; M Concepcion Bratti; Tom Wright; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Sabrina Chen; Anja Reichert; Christina von Knebel Doeberitz; Ruediger Ridder; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Pavel Idelevich; Adi Elkeles; Elimelech Okon; Don Kristt; Dov Terkieltaub; Ilia Rivkin; Ilan Bruchim; Ami Fishman Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne Szarewski; David Mesher; Louise Cadman; Janet Austin; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Linda Ho; George Terry; Stuart Liddle; Martin Young; Mark Stoler; Julie McCarthy; Corrina Wright; Christine Bergeron; W P Soutter; Deirdre Lyons; Jack Cuzick Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; William C Hunt; Nancy Joste; Arpita Ghosh; Nicolas Wentzensen; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Lisa Mirabello; Mark Schiffman; Arpita Ghosh; Ana C Rodriguez; Natasa Vasiljevic; Nicolas Wentzensen; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Sholom Wacholder; Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska; Robert D Burk; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 7.396