Summary
The treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) depends on the evaluation of CIN grade. The grading of CIN is however problematic, as intra- and interobserver reproducibility of CIN-grade evaluation among pathologists is not perfect. There are also difficulties in reliably distinguishing CIN from nonneoplastic lesions, and over- or undertreatment can be the result. These points suggest a need for adjuvant methods that can distinguish CIN from nonneoplastic lesions, and can distinguish different CIN grades and predict the risk of progression of early CIN1 and -2 lesions. This chapter describes the use of biomarker-related methods for the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of patients with CIN1 and CIN2. As CIN involves the progressive dysfunction of proliferation and differentiation activities in cervical epithelial cells, we have concentrated in this chapter on demonstrating the utility of proliferation- and differentiation-related biomarkers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsSpringer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more
References
Heatly, M. K. (2002) How should we grade CIN? Histopathology 40, 377–390.
Keenan, S. J., Diamond, J., McCluggage, W. G., et al. (2000) An automated machine vision system for the histological grading cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). J. Pathol. 192, 351–362.
McCluggage, W. G., Bharucha, H., Caughley, L. M., et al. (1996) Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. J. Clin. Pathol. 49, 833–835.
Ismail, S. M., Colclough, A. B., Dinnen, J. S., et al. (1990) Reporting cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN): intra and inter-pathologist variation and factors associated with disagreement. Histopathology 16, 371–376.
Ismail, S. M., Colclough, A. B., Dinnen, J. S., et al. (1989) Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BMJ 298, 707–710.
Robertson, A. J., Anderson, J. M., Swanson Beck, J., et al. (1989) Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J. Clin. Pathol. 42, 231–238.
Stoler, M. H. and Schiffman, M. (2001) 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 285, 1500–1505.
Nafussi, A. I. and Colquhoun, M. K. (1990) Mild cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN1)—a histological overdiagnosis. Histopathology 17, 557–561.
Creagh, T., Bridger, J. E., Kupek, E., et al. (1995) Pathologist variation in reporting cervical borderline epithelial abnormalities and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J. Clin. Pathol. 48, 59–60.
Baak, J. P. (1991) Manual of Quantitative Pathology in Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 7–18.
Klaes, R., Benner, A., Friedrich, T., et al. (2002) p16INK4a immunohistochemistry improves interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 26, 1389–1399.
Pirog, E. C., Baergen, R. N., Soslow, R. A., et al. (2002) Diagnostic accuracy of cervical low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions is improved with MIB-1 immunostaining. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 26, 70–75.
Kruse, A. J., Baak, J. P., Helliesen, T., et al. (2002) Evaluation of MIB-1-positive cell clusters as a diagnostic marker for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 26, 1501–1507.
Kruse, A. J., Baak, J. P. A., de Bruin, P. C., et al. (2001) Ki67 immunoquantitation in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a sensitive marker for grading. J. Pathol. 193, 48–54.
Kruse, A. J., Baak, J. P. A., de Bruin, P. C., et al. (2001) Relationship between the presence of oncogenic HPV DNA assessed by polymerase chain reaction and Ki67 immunoquantitative features in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J. Pathol. 195, 557–562.
Kruse, A. J., Baak, J. P. A., Janssen, E. A., et al. (2003) Low and high risk CIN1 and 2 lesions: prospective value of grade, HPV and Ki67 immunoquantitative variables. J. Pathol. 199, 462–470.
Kruse, A. J., Baak, J. P. A., Janssen, E. A., et al. (2004) Ki67 predicts progression in early CIN: Validation of a multivariate progression-resk model. Cell Oncol. 26, 13–20.
Kruse, A. J., Gudlaugsson, E., Helliesen, T., et al. (2004) Evaluation of prospective routine application of Ki67 immunoquantitation in early CIN for short-term progression risk assessment. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 26, 134–140.
Kruse, A. J., Skaland, I., Janssen, E. A., et al. (2004) Quantitative molecular parameters to identify low and high risk early CIN lesions: role of markers of proliferative activity and differentiation and Rb availability. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 23, 100–109.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Humana Press Inc.
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Baak, J.P.A., Kruse, AJ. (2005). Use of Biomarkers in the Evaluation of CIN Grade and Progression of Early CIN. In: Davy, C., Doorbar, J. (eds) Human Papillomaviruses. Methods in Molecular Medicine, vol 119. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-982-6:085
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-982-6:085
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-373-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-982-0
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols