| Literature DB >> 29190817 |
Sergio Serrano-Villar1, Beatriz Hernández-Novoa1, Amparo de Benito2, Jorge Del Romero3, Antonio Ocampo4, José Ramón Blanco5, Mar Masiá6, Elena Sendagorta7, Gonzalo Sanz8, Santiago Moreno1, José A Pérez-Molina1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening of anal cancer in HIV-infected MSM with anal cytology results in high rates of false positive results and elevated burden of high-resolution anoscopies. High-risk HPV up-regulates p16 and Ki67 expression in epithelial cells. We assessed the usefulness of P16/Ki-67 immunostaining cytology for the diagnosis of precancerous anal lesions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29190817 PMCID: PMC5708629 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
General characteristics of the study population.
| N = 328 | |
|---|---|
| 39 (10) | |
| 328 (100%) | |
| 161 (49%) | |
| 367 (258, 510) | |
| 602 (470, 898) | |
| 0.47 (0.04, 0.80) | |
| 245 (74.6%) | |
| 186 (57%) | |
| | 100 (20, 300) |
| | 3 (1, 15) |
| | 70 (30%) |
| | 78 (24%) |
Frequencies of P16/Ki67 positive immunostaining according to histologic results.
| Histology | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cytology | |||||
| 6 (85.7%) | 77 (77%) | 38 (61.3%) | 40 (58.8%) | 161 (67.9%) | |
| 1 (14.3%) | 23(23%) | 24 (38.7%) | 28 (41.2%) | 76 (32.1%) | |
| 7 (100%) | 100 (100%) | 62 (100%) | 68 (100%) | 237 (100%) | |
P trend = 0.004.
P16/Ki67 immunostaining was not obtained in 12/80 biopsy-proven HSIL.
Predictive values for the diagnosis of biopsy-proven HSIL.
| Abnormal cytology | PI16/Ki67 positivity | PI16/Ki67 positivity + abnormal cytology | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95.6% (91.2–99.9) | 41.2% (29.2–53.1) | 42.6% (29.9–55.4) | |
| 58.8% (52.2–65.4) | 71.0% (73.9–78.1) | 61.1% (50.8–71.4) | |
| 39.8% (33.2–46.4) | 37.3% (26.1–48.5) | 42.6% (29.8–55.4) | |
| 95.8% (91.6–99.9) | 25.8% (18.8-32-8) | 38.9% (28.6–49.2) |
Abnormal cytology: ASCUS, LSIL or HSIL.
Logistic regression analysis.
Outcome: Biopsy-proven HSIL.
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | P value | ||
| All samples | 10.3 | 3.0–35.2 | <0.001 | |
| P16/Ki67 cutoff >4 cells | 9.8 | 2.8–33.9 | <0.001 | |
| P16/Ki67 cutoff >10 cells | 12.9 | 2.9–57.6 | 0.001 | |
| Excluding insufficient cellularity | 10.3 | 3.0–35.2 | <0.001 | |
| All samples | 1.2 | 0.6–2.5 | 0.648 | |
| P16/Ki67 cutoff >4 cells | 1.2 | 0.7–2.6 | 0.661 | |
| P16/Ki67 cutoff >10 cells | 0.7 | 0.2–2.6 | 0.544 | |
| Excluding insufficient cellularity | 1.2 | 0.6–2.5 | 0.648 | |
| 10.7 | 3.2–36.3 | <0.001 | ||
The combination of the standard cytology with P16/Ki67 immunostaining did not increment the predictive value of standard cytology alone (AUC 0.685 vs. 0.673, respectively, P = 0.688).
Fig 1ROC area for diagnosis of biopsy proven-HSIL of the combination of the standard cytology with P16/Ki67 immunostaining vs. standard cytology alone.