Role of p16INK4a cytology testing as an adjunct to enhance the diagnostic specificity and accuracy in human papillomavirus-positive women within an organized cervical cancer screening program

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 506-514

  Gustinucci, Daniela ^a   Passamonti, Basilio ^a   Cesarini, Elena ^a   Butera, Daniela ^b   Palmieri, Emiliano Antonio ^b   Bulletti, Simonetta ^a   Carlani, Angela ^a   Staiano, Maria ^b   D'Amico, Maria Rosaria ^a   D'Angelo, Valentina ^a   Di Dato, Eugenio ^a   Martinelli, Nadia ^a   Malaspina, Morena ^a   Spita, Nicoletta ^a   Tintori, Beatrice ^a   Fulciniti, Franco ^b  

^a UOC Diagnostica di Laboratorio   (Italy)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high grade intraepithelial squamous lesion; Cervical screening; High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; High risk human papillomavirus genotypes; Human papillomavirus; Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; Triage

Indexed keywords

CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR 2A;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 84867726323     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000338979     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114-2119.
2. Stoler MH, Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group: Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500-1505.
3. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001; 94: 153-156.
4. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189: 12-19.
5. Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, Sherman M, Jansen AM, Peto J, Schiffman MH, Moreno V, Kurman R, Shah KV: Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International Biological Study on Cervical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 796-802.
6. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD: Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Eng J Med 1998; 338: 423-428.
7. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al: Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007; 370: 890-907.
8. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R; ALTS Study Group: 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.
9. Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch J, Dillner J: Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 280-293.
10. Solomon D, Schiffman M: Have we resolved how to triage equivocal cervical cytology? J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 250-251.
11. Szarewski A, Ambroisine L, Cadman L, Austin J, et al: Comparison of predictor for highgrade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 3033-3042.
12. Denton KJ, Bergeron C, Klement P, Trunk MJ, et al: The sensitivity and specificity of p16 INK4a cytology vs. HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical disease in the triage of ASC-US and LSIL pap cytology results. Am J Clin Pathol 2010; 134: 12-21.
13. Cuschieri K, Wentzensen N: Human papillomavirus and p16 detection as biomarkers for the improved diagnosis of cervical neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 2536-2545.
14. Wentzensen N, von Knebel Doeberitz M: Biomarkers in cervical cancer screening. Dis Markers 2007; 23: 315-330.
15. Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, et al: p16 INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35: 210-220.
16. Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al: Overexpression of p16 INK4a as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 276-284.
17. Bibbo M, Klump WJ, De Cecco J, Kovatich AJ: Procedure for immunocytochemical detection of p16 INK4a antigen in thin-layer, liquid-based specimens. Acta Cytol 2002; 46: 25-29.
18. Bibbo M, De Cecco J, Kovatich AJ: p16 INK4a as an adjunct in liquid-based cytology. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2003; 25: 8-11.
19. Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al: Over-expression of p16 INK4a as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 276-284.
20. Agoff N, Lin P, Morihara J, Mao C, Kiviat N, Koutsky L: p16 INK4a expression correlates with degree of cervical neoplasia: a comparison with Ki-67 expression and detection of high-risk HPV types. Mod Pathol 2003; 16: 665-673.
21. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J: Liquid compared with conventional cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167-177.
22. Obwegeser J, Brack S: Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including followup of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 709-714.
23. Davey E, Barrat A, Irwig L: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classification, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006; 367: 122-132.
24. Negri G, Moretto G, Menia E, et al: p16 INK4a immunocytochemistry in liquid-based cervico-vaginal specimens with modified Papanicolaou counterstaining. J Clin Pathol 2006; 59: 827-830.
25. Trunk MJ, Dallenbach-Hellweg G, Ridder R, et al: Morphologic characteristics of p16 INK4a positive cells in cervical cytology samples. Acta Cytol 2004; 48: 771-782.
26. Lea JS, Coleman R, Kurien A, Schorge J, et al: Aberrant p16 methylation is a biomarker for tobacco exposure in cervical squamous cell carcinogenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 674-679.
27. Ostor AG: Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993; 12: 186-192.
28. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D: Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 18-25.
29. Milicic-Juhas V, Pajtler M: Is the HSIL subclassification cytologically real and clinically justified? Coll Antropol 2010; 34: 395-400.