Histological progression from low (LSIL) to high (HSIL) squamous intraepithelial lesion is an uncommon event and an indication for quality assurance review

Modern Pathology

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1045-1051

  Chen, Eleanor Y ^a   Tran, Ann ^a   Raho, Caroline J ^a   Birch, Chandler M ^a   Crum, Christopher P ^a   Hirsch, Michelle S ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

HSIL; LSIL; Precancer; Squamous intraepithelial lesion

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; PROTEIN P16;

CANCER GROWTH; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ERRORS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77955174112     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.85     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Wright Jr TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. 2001ASCCP-sponsored Consensus Workshop. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7: 154-167.
2. Ostör AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186-192.
3. Pretorius RG, Peterson P, Azizi F, et al. Subsequent risk and presentation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or cancer after a colposcopic diagnosis of CIN 1 or less. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1260-1265.
4. Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D, ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colpo-scopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1406-1412.
5. Sano T, Oyama T, Kashiwabara K, et al. Expression status of p16 protein is associated with human papillomavirus oncogenic potential in cervical and genital lesions. Am J Pathol 1998;153:1741-1748.
6. Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al. Overexpres-sion of p16(INK4A) as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001;92:276-284.
7. Keating JT, Cviko A, Riethdorf S, et al. Ki-67, cyclin E, and p16INK4 are complimentary surrogate biomarkers for human papilloma virus-related cervical neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:884-891.
8. Baak JP, Kruse AJ, Robboy SJ, et al. Dynamic behavioural interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with molecular biomarkers. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:1017-1028.
9. Baak JP, Kruse AJ, Janssen E, et al. Predictive testing of early CIN behaviour by molecular biomarkers. Cell Oncol 2005;27:277-280.
10. Negri G, Bellisano G, Zannoni GF, et al. p16 ink4a and HPV L1 immunohistochemistry is helpful for estimating the behavior of low-grade dysplastic lesions of the cervix uteri. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1715-1720.
11. Nuovo GJ, Pedemonte BM. Human papillomavirus types and recurrent cervical warts. JAMA 1990;263: 1223-1226.
12. Crum CP, Beach KJ, Hedley ML, et al. Dynamics of human papillomavirus infection between biopsy and excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: results from the ZYC101a protocol. J Infect Dis 2004;189: 1348-1354.
13. Medeiros F, Yuan L, Breslin G, et al. Type-specific HPV testing as a predictor of high-grade squamous intrae-pithelial lesion outcome after cytologic abnormalities. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2005;9:154-159.
14. Rosenfeld WD, Rose E, Vermund SH, et al. Follow-up evaluation of cervicovaginal human papillomavirus infection in adolescents. J Pediatr 1992;121:307-311.
15. Pinto AP, Crum CP. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: defining progression and its consequence. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:352-362.
16. Wright TC, Kurman RJ, Ferenczy A. Precancerous lesions of the cervix. In: Kurman RJ, Blaustein A (eds). Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract 1994, 4th edn., Springer-Verlag: New York, pp 229-278.
17. Crum CP, Rose PG. Cervical squamous neoplasms. In: Crum CP, Lee KR (eds). Diagnostic Gynecologic and Obstetric Pathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2006.
18. Carreon JD, Sherman ME, Guillén 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.
19. 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.
20. Crum CP. Laboratory management of CIN 2: the consensus is consensus. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:162-164.
21. Brown FM, Faquin WC, Sun D, et al. LSIL biopsies after HSIL smears. Correlation with high-risk HPV and greater risk of HSIL on follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;11:765-768.
22. Evans MF, Adamson CS, Papillo JL. et al. Distribution of human papillomavirus types in ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology and correlations with patient age and biopsy outcomes. Cancer 2006;106: 1054-1064.