Literature DB >> 21365778

Performance of p16INK4a immunocytochemistry as a marker of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions.

Ivan Tramujas da Costa E Silva1, Michelle Coelho Ribeiro, Felicidad Santos Gimenez, Junia Raquel Dutra Ferreira, Renata Silva Galvao, Paula Emanuelle Vasco Hargreaves, Adriana Gonçalves Daumas Pinheiro Guimaraes, Luiz Carlos de Lima Ferreira.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Protein p16(INK4a) immunocytochemistry (ICCp16) has the potential to reveal lesions at risk of progression to anal cancer. This study examined measures of diagnostic validity of ICCp16 in HIV-positive patients treated at the Tropical Medicine Foundation of Amazonas in the coloproctology outpatient clinic.
METHODS: One hundred ninety HIV-positive patients were consecutively enrolled in 2007 and 2008. All patients underwent anal cytologic sampling to perform ICCp16 in conventional and GluCyte (Synermed International, Westfield, Indiana and S¸ao Paulo, Brazil) smears and also for genotyping of human papillomavirus (HPV). Patients were then subjected to anal biopsies monitored by high-resolution anoscopy. Hematoxylin-eosin and immunoperoxidase p16 (clone 6H12) stains were performed in slides with biopsied and cytological specimens, respectively. HPV genotyping on anal scrapings was performed by a polymerase-chain reaction (PCR)-based method. The immunochemical findings were compared with histopathological and PCR results in contingency tables and analyzed by nonparametric tests. Measures of diagnostic validity of ICCp16 were calculated. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .5.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant association between the immunochemical results (conventional or GluCyte smears) and histopathological or HPV genotyping findings (P > .05). In the best scenario, ICCp16 presented 31% sensitivity and 81% specificity for the diagnosis of anal squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASIL) and 30% and 66%, respectively, for the diagnosis of infection with high-risk HPV.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between ICCp16 results and histopathological findings nor between ICCp16 and HPV genotyping. ICCp16 showed poor sensitivity and moderate specificity for the diagnosis of ASIL or high-risk HPV.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21365778     DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol        ISSN: 1934-662X            Impact factor:   5.284


  6 in total

1.  Strategies for screening and early detection of anal cancers: A narrative and systematic review and meta-analysis of cytology, HPV testing, and other biomarkers.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Comparative accuracy of anal and cervical cytology in screening for moderate to severe dysplasia by magnification guided punch biopsy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wm Christopher Mathews; Wollelaw Agmas; Edward Cachay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  p16 immunostaining as a predictor of anal and cervical dysplasia in women attending a sexually transmitted infection clinic.

Authors:  Deepika Pandhi; Kavita Bisherwal; Archana Singal; Kiran Guleria; Kiran Mishra
Journal:  Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS       Date:  2016 Jul-Dec

4.  The Accuracy of Anal Swab-Based Tests to Detect High-Grade Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in HIV-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fernando Dias Gonçalves Lima; Janine D Viset; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jacqueline Limpens; Jan M Prins; Henry J C de Vries
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 3.835

5.  Anal human papilloma viral infection and squamous cell carcinoma: Need objective biomarkers for risk assessment and surveillance guidelines.

Authors:  Santosh Shenoy
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2022-02-15

Review 6.  Relative accuracy of cervical and anal cytology for detection of high grade lesions by colposcope guided biopsy: a cut-point meta-analytic comparison.

Authors:  Edward R Cachay; Wollelaw Agmas; William C Mathews
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.