Investigating diagnostic problems of CIN1 and CIN2 associated with high-risk HPV by combining the novel molecular biomarker PanHPVE4 With P16INK4a

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 39, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1518-1528

  Van Baars, Romy ^a   Griffin, Heather ^c,d   Wu, Zhonglin ^d   Soneji, Yasmina J ^d   Van De Sandt, Miekel M ^a   Arora, Rupali ^d   Van Der Marel, Jacolien ^a   Harmsel, Bram Ter ^b   Jach, Robert ^e   Okon, Krzysztof ^e   Huras, Hubert ^e   Jenkins, David ^a   Quint, Wim G V ^a   Doorbar, John ^c,d  

^a DDL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY   (Netherlands)

^b Rooseveltkliniek   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE   (Poland)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; E4; Human papillomavirus; MCM; P16INK4a; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR 2A; ONCOPROTEIN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; CANCER GRADING; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CHEMISTRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; EUROPE; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; GENETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VERY ELDERLY; VIROLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR P16; EUROPE; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TESTS; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONCOGENE PROTEINS, VIRAL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84944314233     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000498     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Richart RM. Causes and management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer. 1987;60:1951-1959.
2. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127: 2893-2917.
3. van der Aa MA, Pukkala E, Coebergh JW, et al. Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1854-1858.
4. de Vet HC, Knipschild PG, Schouten HJ, et al. Interobserver variation in histopathological grading of cervical dysplasia. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:1395-1398.
5. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, et al. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BMJ. 1989;298:707-710.
6. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS, et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:231-238.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993;12:186-192.
11. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:18-25.
12. Moscicki AB, Ma Y, Wibbelsman C, et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1373-1380.
13. Crum CP, Nuovo G, Friedman D, et al. Accumulation of RNA homologous to human papillomavirus type 16 open reading frames in genital precancers. J Virol. 1988;62:84-90.
14. Doorbar J, Foo C, Coleman N, et al. Characterization of events during the late stages of HPV16 infection in vivo using high-affinity synthetic Fabs to E4. Virology. 1997;238:40-52.
15. Durst M, Glitz D, Schneider A, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV 16) gene expression and DNA replication in cervical neoplasia: Analysis by in situ hybridization. Virology. 1992;189:132-140.
16. Freeman A, Morris LS, Mills AD, et al. Minichromosome maintenance proteins as biological markers of dysplasia and malignancy. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5:2121-2132.
17. Middleton K, Peh W, Southern S, et al. Organization of human papillomavirus productive cycle during neoplastic progression provides a basis for selection of diagnostic markers. J Virol. 2003;77:10186-10201.
18. Stoler MH, Rhodes CR, Whitbeck A, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 gene expression in cervical neoplasias. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:117-128.
19. von Knebel Doeberitz M, Reuschenbach M, Schmidt D, et al. Biomarkers for cervical cancer screening: The role of p16(INK4a) to highlight transforming HPV infections. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2012;9:149-163.
20. Wentzensen N, von Knebel Doeberitz M. Biomarkers in cervical cancer screening. Dis Markers. 2007;23:315-330.
21. Bergeron C, Ronco G, Reuschenbach M, et al. The clinical impact of using p16 immunochemistry in cervical histopathology and cytology: An update of recent developments. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:2741-2751.
22. 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.
23. Bochman ML, Schwacha A. The Mcm2-7 complex has in vitro helicase activity. Mol Cell. 2008;31:287-293.
24. Davidson EJ, Morris LS, Scott IS, et al. Minichromosome maintenance (Mcm) proteins, cyclin B1 and D1, phosphohistone H3 and in situ DNA replication for functional analysis of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:257-262.
25. Facoetti A, Ranza E, Grecchi I, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of minichromosome maintenance protein 7 in astrocytoma grading. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:3513-3516.
26. Lee YS, Ha SA, Kim HJ, et al. Minichromosome maintenance protein 3 is a candidate proliferation marker in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Exp Mol Pathol. 2010;88:138-142.
27. Zhang J, Wang L, Qiu M, et al. The protein levels of MCM7 and p63 in evaluating lesion severity of cervical disease. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:318-324.
28. Giaginis C, Vgenopoulou S, Vielh P, et al. MCM proteins as diagnostic and prognostic tumor markers in the clinical setting. Histol Histopathol. 2010;25:351-370.
29. Lampert IA, Horncastle D, Dilworth S, et al. The expression of minichromosome maintenance protein-2 in normal and abnormal megakaryocytes and comparison with the proliferative marker Ki- 67. Br J Haematol. 2005;131:490-494.
30. Szelachowska J, Dziegiel P, Jelen-Krzeszewska J, et al. Mcm-2 protein expression predicts prognosis better than Ki-67 antigen in oral cavity squamocellular carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2006;26: 2473-2478.
31. Bulten J, van der Laak JA, Gemmink JH, et al. MIB1, a promising marker for the classification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Pathol. 1996;178:268-273.
32. Nam EJ, Kim JW, Hong JW, et al. Expression of the p16 and Ki-67 in relation to the grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and highrisk human papillomavirus infection. J Gynecol Oncol. 2008;19: 162-168.
33. Pirog EC, Baergen RN, Soslow RA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cervical low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions is improved with MIB-1 immunostaining. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:70-75.
34. Henderson D, Hall L, Prpic N, et al. The selection and characterization of antibodies to minichromosome maintenance proteins that highlight cervical dysplasia. J Immunol Methods. 2011;370:1-13.
35. Peh WL, Middleton K, Christensen N, et al. Life cycle heterogeneity in animal models of human papillomavirus-associated disease. J Virol. 2002;76:10401-10416.
36. Doorbar J. Molecular biology of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006;110:525-541.
37. Doorbar J. The E4 protein; structure, function and patterns of expression. Virology. 2013;445:80-98.
38. Griffin H, Wu Z, Marnane R, et al. E4 antibodies facilitate detection and type-assignment of active HPV infection in cervical disease. PLoS One. 2012;7:e49974.
39. van der Marel J, van Baars R, Quint WG, et al. The impact of human papillomavirus genotype on colposcopic appearance: A cross-sectional analysis. BJOG. 2014;121:1117-1126.
40. Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al. The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-associated lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012;16:205-242.
41. Quint WG, Scholte G, van Doorn LJ, et al. Comparative analysis of human papillomavirus infections in cervical scrapes and biopsy specimens by general SPF(10) PCR and HPV genotyping. J Pathol. 2001;194:51-58.
42. Kleter B, van Doorn LJ, ter Schegget J, et al. Novel short-fragment PCR assay for highly sensitive broad-spectrum detection of anogenital human papillomaviruses. Am J Pathol. 1998;153:1731-1739.
43. Kleter B, van Doorn LJ, Schrauwen L, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of a highly sensitive PCR-reverse hybridization line probe assay for detection and identification of anogenital human papillomavirus. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:2508-2517.
44. van Doorn LJ, Molijn A, Kleter B, et al. Highly effective detection of human papillomavirus 16 and 18 DNA by a testing algorithm combining broad-spectrum and type-specific PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:3292-3298.
45. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
46. Doorbar J, Cubie H. Molecular basis for advances in cervical screening. Mol Diagn. 2005;9:129-142.
47. Khan J, Davy CE, McIntosh PB, et al. Role of calpain in the formation of human papillomavirus type 16 E1-E4 amyloid fibers and reorganization of the keratin network. J Virol. 2011;85: 9984-9997.
48. McIntosh PB, Martin SR, Jackson DJ, et al. Structural analysis reveals an amyloid form of the human papillomavirus type 16 E1-E4 protein and provides a molecular basis for its accumulation. J Virol. 2008;82:8196-8203.
49. 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.
50. Cortecchia S, Galanti G, Sgadari C, et al. Follow-up study of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 overexpressing p16Ink4a. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1663-1669.
51. del Pino M, Garcia S, Fuste V, et al. Value of p16(INK4a) as a marker of progression/regression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:488 e1-488 e7.
52. Liao GD, Sellors JW, Sun HK, et al. p16 immunohistochemical staining and predictive value for progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1: A prospective study in China. Int J Cancer. 2014;134:1715-1724.
53. Nishio S, Fujii T, Nishio H, et al. p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry is a promising biomarker to predict the outcome of low grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: comparison study with HPV genotyping. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013;24:215-221.
54. Pacchiarotti A, Ferrari F, Bellardini P, et al. Prognostic value of p16-INK4A protein in women with negative or CIN1 histology result: A follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2014;134:897-904.