Evaluation of Biomarkers p16/Ki-67 in Cervical Cytology for Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
- 7 Downloads
To test the clinical utility of biomarkers p16/Ki-67 expression in cervical cytology smears as a marker for transforming HPV infection.
Setting and Design
Experimental study at a tertiary care hospital.
Women who were screened positive on Pap and visual inspection tests (n = 280) underwent colposcopy and biopsy. p16/Ki-67 immunostaining was performed in abnormal Pap smears (n = 86), and HPV DNA testing was also performed in the same women.
Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for each biomarker separately and in combination. McNemar test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers with HPV DNA. Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were compared using the Chi-square test.
Eighty-six women with abnormal cytology were evaluated with p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry; 20.9% (n = 18) and 18.6% (n = 16) were positive for each biomarker, while dual marker was positive in 15% (n = 13). In all smears, the sensitivity of p16INK4a/Ki-67 in detecting CIN 2+ lesion was 76.9% and specificity was 95.8%. For ASCUS (n = 42) and LSIL (n = 23) smears, specificity and negative predictive value of p16/Ki-67 for CIN 2+ were 100% with a likelihood ratio (LR+) of 27 and 25, respectively, suggesting good diagnostic accuracy. In comparison with HPV DNA testing, combined marker p16/Ki-67 was significantly more specific (p = 0.003); AUC was 0.734 and 0.635, respectively.
p16/Ki-67 evaluation in cervical cytology is a valuable biomarker in triaging for CIN 2+ disease in ASCUS and LSIL smears.
Keywordsp16/Ki-67 HPV Cervical cancer screening Cervical cytology Biomarker
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest among the authors.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.World Health Organization (WHO): Cervical cancer estimated incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2018. http://www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/iarcnews/2018/gco_globocan2018.php. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
- 9.A practical manual on visual screening for cervical neoplasia. Online screening material www.screening.iarc.fr. Accessed 15 Sept 2017.
- 11.Lapierre SG, Sauthier P, Mayrand M-H, Dufresne S, Petignat P, Provencher D, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA triage of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with cobas 4800 HPV and hybrid capture 2 tests for detection of high-grade lesions of the uterine cervix. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(4):1240–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D. 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 colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(6):1406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gustinucci D, Passamonti B, Cesarini E, Butera D, Palmieri EA, Bulletti S, et al. Role of p16(INK4a) 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 Cytol. 2012;56:506–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar