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.
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.
Authors: Jody E Hooper; Jessica F Hebert; Amy Schilling; Neil D Gross; Joshua S Schindler; James P Lagowski; Molly Kulesz-Martin; Christopher L Corless; Terry K Morgan Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2015-04
Authors: Renée Mf Ebisch; Judith van der Horst; Meyke Hermsen; L Lucia Rijstenberg; Judith Em Vedder; Johan Bulten; Remko P Bosgraaf; Viola Mj Verhoef; Daniëlle Am Heideman; Peter Jf Snijders; Chris Jlm Meijer; Folkert J van Kemenade; Leon Fag Massuger; Willem Jg Melchers; Ruud Lm Bekkers; Albert G Siebers Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Júlio C Possati-Resende; José H T G Fregnani; Ligia M Kerr; Edmundo C Mauad; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M H Uijterwaal; B I Witte; F J Van Kemenade; D Rijkaart; R Ridder; J Berkhof; G A M A Balfoort-van der Meij; M C G Bleeker; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Hans Ikenberg; Christine Bergeron; Dietmar Schmidt; Henrik Griesser; Francisco Alameda; Claudio Angeloni; Johannes Bogers; Roger Dachez; Karin Denton; Jalil Hariri; Thomas Keller; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz; Heinrich H Neumann; Luis M Puig-Tintore; Mario Sideri; Susanne Rehm; Ruediger Ridder Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 13.506