Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Biomarkers p16/Ki-67 in Cervical Cytology for Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Statistical Analysis

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

p16/Ki-67 evaluation in cervical cytology is a valuable biomarker in triaging for CIN 2+ disease in ASCUS and LSIL smears.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

  2. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(10):810–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shastri SS, Dinshaw K, Amin G, Goswami S, Patil S, Chinoy R, et al. Concurrent evaluation of visual, cytological and HPV testing as screening methods for the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Mumbai, India. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(3):186–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Pourasad-Shahrak S, Salehi-Pourmehr H, Mostafa-Garebaghi P, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Malakouti J, et al. Comparing the results of Pap smear and direct visual inspection (DVI) with 5% acetic acid in cervical cancer screening. Niger Med J. 2015;56:35–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, Mao C, Weiss NS, Kuypers JM, et al. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, frequency of referral. JAMA. 2002;288:1749–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Petry KU, Schmidt D, Scherbring S, Luyten A, Reinecke-Lüthge A, Bergeron C, et al. Triaging Pap cytology negative, HPV positive cervical cancer screening results with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(3):505–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmidt D, Bergeron C, Denton KJ, Ridder R. p16/ki-67 dual-stain cytology in the triage of ASCUS and LSIL papanicolaou cytology: results from the European equivocal or mildly abnormal Papanicolaou cytology study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;119(3):158–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kisser A, Zechmeister-Koss I. A systematic review of p16/Ki-67 immuno-testing for triage of low grade cervical cytology. BJOG. 2015;122(1):64–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. A practical manual on visual screening for cervical neoplasia. Online screening material www.screening.iarc.fr. Accessed 15 Sept 2017.

  10. Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P, et al. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the international federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:166–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Possati-Resende JC, Fregnani JHTG, Kerr LM, Mauad EC, Longatto-Filho A, Scapulatempo-Neto C. The accuracy of p16/Ki-67 and HPV test in the detection of CIN2/3 in women diagnosed with ASC-US or LSIL. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0134445.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bibbo M, Klump W, DeCecco J. Procedure for immunocytochemical detection of p16INK4A antigen in thin-layer, liquid-based specimens. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:25–9.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang R, Li X, Qian M, Niu J, You Z. The natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and the clinical significance of p16(INK4a) protein as a marker of progression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015;50(3):210–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE, et al. Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(15):4154–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Edgerton N, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT. Evaluation of CINtec PLUS testing as an adjunctive test in ASC- US diagnosed SurePath preparations. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41(1):35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bergeron C, Ikenberg H, Sideri M, Denton K, Bogers J, Schmidt D, PALMS Study Group, et al. Prospective evaluation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for managing women with abnormal Papanicolaou cytology: PALMS study results. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123(6):373–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi, India

    Shalini Rajaram, Sathija Puthiya kulap, Bindiya Gupta & Neerja Goel

  2. Department of Pathology, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India

    V. K. Arora

  3. Division of Molecular Oncology, National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Alok C. Bharti

  4. Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

    Alok C. Bharti

Authors
  1. Shalini Rajaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sathija Puthiya kulap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bindiya Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. K. Arora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alok C. Bharti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Neerja Goel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bindiya Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest among the authors.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work was done at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Pathology, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajaram, S., Puthiya kulap, S., Gupta, B. et al. Evaluation of Biomarkers p16/Ki-67 in Cervical Cytology for Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 17, 46 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0290-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0290-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation