Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1077-1087

  Galgano, Mary T ^a   Castle, Philip E ^b   Atkins, Kristen A ^a   Brix, William K ^a   Nassau, Sarah R ^a   Stoler, Mark H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

biomarker; CIN; HPV; interobserver; Ki 67; p16

Indexed keywords

CAPSID PROTEIN; CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR 2A; KI 67 ANTIGEN; ONCOPROTEIN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CANCER STAGING; CHEMISTRY; COLPOSCOPY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VIROLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; CAPSID PROTEINS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR P16; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KI-67 ANTIGEN; LOGISTIC MODELS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; ODDS RATIO; ONCOGENE PROTEINS, VIRAL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VIRGINIA; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955155277     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. IARC Workgroup. Volume 10: Cervix Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2005.
2. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1284. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1284.:a1284.
3. Baak JP, Bean SM, Stoler MH, et al. Cervical precancer (intraepithelial neoplasia) including colposcopy and functional biomarkers. In: Robboy SJ, Anderson MC, Mutter G, et al, eds. Pathology of the Female Reproductive Tract. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston; 2009.
4. Carreon JD, Sherman ME, Guillen D, et al. CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007;26:441-446.
5. Castle PE, Stoler MH, Solomon D, et al. The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses:An ALTS Report. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:805-815.
6. Castle PE, Cox JT, Jeronimo J, et al. An analysis of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-negative cervical precancers in the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:847-856.
7. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:18-25.
8. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Impact of improved classification on the association of human papillomavirus with cervical precancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:155-163.
9. Conesa-Zamora P, Domenech-Peris A, Orantes-Casado FJ, et al. Effect of human papillomavirus on cell cycle-related proteins p16, Ki-67, Cyclin D1, p53, and ProEx C in precursor lesions of cervical carcinoma: a tissue microarray study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132: 378-390.
10. Demeter LM, Stoler MH, Broker TR, et al. Induction of proliferating cell nuclear antigen in differentiated keratinocytes of human papillomavirus-infected lesions. Hum Pathol. 1994;25:343-348.
11. Galgano MT, Castle PE, Stoler MH, et al. Can HPV-16 genotyping provide a benchmark for cervical biopsy specimen interpretation? Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:65-70.
12. Griesser H, Sander H, Walczak C, et al. HPV vaccine protein L1 predicts disease outcome of high-risk HPV+ early squamous dysplastic lesions. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:840-845.
13. Huang MZ, Li HB, Nie XM, et al. An analysis on the combination expression of HPV L1 capsid protein and p16(INK4a) in cervical lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010 Epub in press, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.21258.
14. Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at a crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:349-353.
15. Kitchener HC, Castle PE, Cox JT. Chapter 7: Achievements and limitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine. 2006;24 (suppl 3): S63-S70.
16. Klaes R, Benner A, Friedrich T, et al. p16INK4a immunohisto-chemistry improves interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26: 1389-1399.
17. Liang J, Mittal KR, Wei JJ, et al. Utility of p16INK4a, CEA, Ki67, P53 and ER/PR in the differential diagnosis of benign, premalig-nant, and malignant glandular lesions of the uterine cervix and their relationship with Silverberg scoring system for endocervical glandular lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007;26:71-75.
18. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999;281:1605-1610.
19. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:425-434.
20. Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Yoshida A, et al. Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and Ki67 as related to disease severity and HPV detection in squamous lesions of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102:537-541.
21. Scott DR, Hagmar B, Maddox P, et al. Use of human papillomavirus DNA testing to compare equivocal cervical cytologic interpretations in the United States, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. Cancer. 2002;96:14-20.
22. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Correlation of cyto-pathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papilloma-virus types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102:182-187.
23. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293-299. (Pubitemid 32219816)
24. Stoler MH. Human papillomaviruses and cervical neoplasia: a model for carcinogenesis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19:16-28.
25. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
26. Trimble CL, Piantadosi S, Gravitt P, et al. Spontaneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:4717-4723.
27. Wang SS, Trunk M, Schiffman M, et al. Validation of p16INK4a as a marker of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in cervical biopsies from a population-based cohort in Costa Rica. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:1355-1360.
28. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithe-lial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007;11:223-239.
29. Wright TC Jr, Schiffman M. Adding a test for human papilloma-virus DNA to cervical-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:489-490.
30. Zhang Q, Kuhn L, Denny LA, et al. Impact of utilizing p16INK4A immunohistochemistry on estimated performance of three cervical cancer screening tests. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:351-356.