PURPOSE: Cytology-based screening has limited sensitivity to detect prevalent cervical precancers. Human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA testing is highly sensitive and provides a high, long-term reassurance of low risk of cervical cancer. However, the specificity of HPV DNA testing is limited, requiring additional, more disease-specific markers for efficient screening approaches. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Liquid-based cytology samples were collected from 625 women referred to colposcopy. A slide was stained using the CINtec plus cytology assay. Pap cytology and HPV genotyping were conducted from the same vial. Clinical performance characteristics were calculated for all women, stratified by age, and for women referred with a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Pap. RESULTS: p16/Ki-67 positivity increased with histologic severity, from 26.8% in normal histology, 46.5% in CIN1, 82.8% in CIN2 to 92.8% in CIN3. Among women with CIN3, p16/Ki-67 positivity increased from 77.8% for women younger than 30 years without HPV16 to 100% for women 30 years and older with HPV16. The sensitivity and specificity to detect CIN3+ were 93.2% and 46.1%, respectively, and increased to 97.2% and 60.0% among women 30 years and older. In women with high-risk (HR)-HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and LSIL, sensitivity and specificity for detection of CIN3 were 90.6% and 48.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: p16/Ki-67 testing could reduce referral to colposcopy by almost half while detecting the most severe cases of CIN3. The high sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 with significantly improved specificity compared with HPV testing makes p16/Ki-67 a viable option for LSIL triage. Further studies are required to evaluate p16/Ki-67 as triage marker in HPV-based screening strategies.
PURPOSE: Cytology-based screening has limited sensitivity to detect prevalent cervical precancers. Human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA testing is highly sensitive and provides a high, long-term reassurance of low risk of cervical cancer. However, the specificity of HPV DNA testing is limited, requiring additional, more disease-specific markers for efficient screening approaches. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Liquid-based cytology samples were collected from 625 women referred to colposcopy. A slide was stained using the CINtec plus cytology assay. Pap cytology and HPV genotyping were conducted from the same vial. Clinical performance characteristics were calculated for all women, stratified by age, and for women referred with a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Pap. RESULTS:p16/Ki-67 positivity increased with histologic severity, from 26.8% in normal histology, 46.5% in CIN1, 82.8% in CIN2 to 92.8% in CIN3. Among women with CIN3, p16/Ki-67 positivity increased from 77.8% for women younger than 30 years without HPV16 to 100% for women 30 years and older with HPV16. The sensitivity and specificity to detect CIN3+ were 93.2% and 46.1%, respectively, and increased to 97.2% and 60.0% among women 30 years and older. In women with high-risk (HR)-HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and LSIL, sensitivity and specificity for detection of CIN3 were 90.6% and 48.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:p16/Ki-67 testing could reduce referral to colposcopy by almost half while detecting the most severe cases of CIN3. The high sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 with significantly improved specificity compared with HPV testing makes p16/Ki-67 a viable option for LSIL triage. Further studies are required to evaluate p16/Ki-67 as triage marker in HPV-based screening strategies.
Authors: Ni Li; Silvia Franceschi; Rebecca Howell-Jones; Peter J F Snijders; Gary M Clifford Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Susanne Kjaer; Estrid Høgdall; Kirsten Frederiksen; Christian Munk; Adriaan van den Brule; Edith Svare; Chris Meijer; Attilla Lorincz; Thomas Iftner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: I Tsoumpou; M Arbyn; M Kyrgiou; N Wentzensen; G Koliopoulos; P Martin-Hirsch; V Malamou-Mitsi; E Paraskevaidis Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; S Terence Dunn; Rosemary E Zuna; Joan Walker; Richard A Allen; Roy Zhang; Mark E Sherman; Sholom Wacholder; Jose Jeronimo; Michael A Gold; Sophia S Wang Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sophia S Wang; Rosemary E Zuna; Nicolas Wentzensen; S Terence Dunn; Mark E Sherman; Michael A Gold; Mark Schiffman; Sholom Wacholder; Richard A Allen; Ingrid Block; Kim Downing; Jose Jeronimo; J Daniel Carreon; Mahboobeh Safaeian; David Brown; Joan L Walker Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M van Ballegooijen; M E van den Akker-van Marle; P G Warmerdam; C J Meijer; J M Walboomers; J D Habbema Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Christopher T Lam; Marlee S Krieger; Jennifer E Gallagher; Betsy Asma; Lisa C Muasher; John W Schmitt; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: D J Speicher; V Ramirez-Amador; D P Dittmer; J Webster-Cyriaque; M T Goodman; A-B Moscicki Journal: Oral Dis Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.511
Authors: Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Patti E Gravitt; S Terence Dunn; David Brown; Richard A Allen; Yolanda J Eby; Katie Smith; Rosemary E Zuna; Roy R Zhang; Michael A Gold; Mark Schiffman; Joan L Walker; Philip E Castle; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 5.948