We have located links that may give you full text access.
P16INK4a immunohistochemistry improves the reproducibility of the histological diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in cone biopsies.
Gynecologic Oncology 2008 October
OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer is currently the most frequently occurring cancer among women in Mexico. Mexican cervical cancer prevention programs have been unsatisfactory in part because the tests used to diagnose precursor lesions have poor reproducibility. The implementation of specific biomarkers may overcome these limitations. Here, we analyzed whether immunohistochemistry for p16(INK4a) could improve the reproducibility of histopathological diagnoses of cervical precancerous lesions.
METHODS: Serial sections of 78 specimens were stained for H&E and p16(INK4a) and independently interpreted by three Mexican pathologists. Specimens were interpreted and categorized in two ways: 1) four diagnostic categories including negative lesions, CIN1, CIN2, and CIN3, or 2) two diagnostic categories; either lesions that do not require therapy (negative, CIN1), or lesions that require therapy (>or=CIN2). The agreement in diagnoses between pairs of observers was evaluated by kappa statistics.
RESULTS: The best concordance in diagnosing was observed with two categories and p16(INK4a) staining. Interestingly, the overall diagnostic discordances of higher than one CIN grade were 26.1% for H&E and 9.20% for p16(INK4a) (P<0.001). Using four diagnostic categories, weighted kappa values for each pair of observers were 0.28, 0.15, and 0.36 for H&E and 0.34, 0.35, and 0.60 for p16(INK4a) stains. Using two diagnostic categories, kappa values were 0.36, 0.12, and 0.18 for H&E and 0.59, 0.70, and 0.59, p16(INK4a) stains.
CONCLUSION: These data show that p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry substantially improved the reproducibility of interpreting histological slides. This approach may result in more accurate diagnoses and improved clinical management of patients with cervical precancerous lesions in Mexico and elsewhere.
METHODS: Serial sections of 78 specimens were stained for H&E and p16(INK4a) and independently interpreted by three Mexican pathologists. Specimens were interpreted and categorized in two ways: 1) four diagnostic categories including negative lesions, CIN1, CIN2, and CIN3, or 2) two diagnostic categories; either lesions that do not require therapy (negative, CIN1), or lesions that require therapy (>or=CIN2). The agreement in diagnoses between pairs of observers was evaluated by kappa statistics.
RESULTS: The best concordance in diagnosing was observed with two categories and p16(INK4a) staining. Interestingly, the overall diagnostic discordances of higher than one CIN grade were 26.1% for H&E and 9.20% for p16(INK4a) (P<0.001). Using four diagnostic categories, weighted kappa values for each pair of observers were 0.28, 0.15, and 0.36 for H&E and 0.34, 0.35, and 0.60 for p16(INK4a) stains. Using two diagnostic categories, kappa values were 0.36, 0.12, and 0.18 for H&E and 0.59, 0.70, and 0.59, p16(INK4a) stains.
CONCLUSION: These data show that p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry substantially improved the reproducibility of interpreting histological slides. This approach may result in more accurate diagnoses and improved clinical management of patients with cervical precancerous lesions in Mexico and elsewhere.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app