Analysis of factors affecting the prognosis of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2

Zhang,Xiaobo; Xu,Yougui; Meng,Tianyu; Shen,Danhua

doi:10.3892/ol.2020.11711

Analysis of factors affecting the prognosis of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2

Authors:
- Xiaobo Zhang
- Yougui Xu
- Tianyu Meng
- Danhua Shen
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, P.R. China
Published online on: June 9, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11711
Pages: 1810-1816
Copyright: © Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

According to the 2014 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2) have an equivocal diagnosis, but p16 is considered as the reference index for CIN2. Positive p16 expression in CIN2 is associated with high‑grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), whereas p16 negative lesions are low‑grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The purpose of the present study was to examine the clinical value of p16 and human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA in the prognostication of patients with CIN2. From January 2013 to January 2016, 108 patients were diagnosed with CIN2 by biopsy and followed up at 6‑month intervals at Peking University People's Hospital (Beijing, China). The expression of HPV E6/E7 mRNA was detected by in situ hybridization, while the expression of p16 and Ki‑67 proteins was detected by immunohistochemistry. Of the 108 CIN2 cases, 20 progressed to HSIL/CIN3, 36 cases demonstrated persistence with CIN2 after the follow‑up and 52 cases achieved regression (≤CIN1). Of the p16‑positive 82 cases, 20 cases were detected to have progressed, whereas in the p16‑negative group, no progression was observed. There were statistically significant differences among the p16‑positive and negative groups (P<0.05). In the HPV E6/E7 mRNA‑positive 69 cases, 18 cases were detected to have progressed, whereas in the HPV E6/E7 mRNA‑negative 39 cases, progression was detected in only 2 cases. There were statistically significant differences among the HPV E6/E7 mRNA‑positive and negative groups (P<0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was plotted; the area under the curve for HPV E6/E7 mRNA was 0.745, that for p16 was 0.546 and that for Ki‑67 was 0.501. The detection of HPV E6/E7 mRNA may provide important predictive information for the prognosis of CIN2, however p16 and Ki‑67 proteins may provide little value.

View Figures

View References

1	Christoph G, Stephan P, Camilla N, Rahhal J, Hefler L, Tempfer CB, Heinze G, Stary G, Reinthaller A and Speiser P: Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with topical imiquimod: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 120:152–159. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Aps G, Mag G and Da-Silva VD: Evaluation of Telomerase (hTert), Ki67 and p16ink4a expressions in low and high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Rev Col Bras Cir. 44:131–139. 2017.(In English, Portuguese). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Koeneman MM, Roy Fpm K, Nijman HW, Brigitte Fm S, Toon VG and Arnold-Jan K: Natural history of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A review of prognostic biomarkers. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 15:5272015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Xu QX and Zhang ZY: High-risk Human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical lesions and vaccination challenges in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 16:2193–2197. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Evans MF, Peng Z, Clark KM, Adamson CSC, Ma XJ, Wu X, Wang H, Luo Y and Cooper K: HPV E6/E7 RNA in situ hybridization signal patterns as biomarkers of three-tier cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade. PLoS One. 9:e911422014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Mirghani H, Casiraghi O, Amen F, He M, Ma XJ, Saulnier P, Lacroix L, Drusch F, Lakdhar A and Saint Guily JL: Diagnosis of HPV-driven head and neck cancer with a single test in routine clinical practice. Mod Pathol. 28:1518–1527. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Mirghani H, Casiraghi O, Guerlain J, Amen F, He MX, Ma XJ, Luo Y, Mourareau C, Drusch F, Lakdhar AB, et al: Diagnosis of HPV driven oropharyngeal cancers: Comparing p16 based algorithms with the RNAscope HPV-test. Oral Oncology. 62:101–108. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Mills AM, Dirks DC, Poulter MD, Mills SE and Stoler MH: HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA in situ hybridization: Validation against PCR, DNA in situ hybridization, and p16 immunohistochemistry in 102 samples of cervical, vulvar, anal, and head and neck Neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 41:607–615. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Loopik DL, Doucette S, Bekkers RL and Bentley JR: Regression and progression predictors of CIN2 in women younger than 25 years. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 20:213–217. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox TJ, Heller DS, Henry MR, Luff RD, McCalmont T, Nayar R, Palefsky JM, Stoler MH, 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. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 32:76–115. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Christine B, Guglielmo R, Miriam R, Nicolas W, Marc A, Mark S and Magnus von Knebel D: The clinical impact of using p16(INK4a) immunochemistry in cervical histopathology and cytology: An update of recent developments. Int J Cancer. 136:2741–2751. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Xiaobo Z and Danhua S: p16INK4a and Ki-67 measurement predict progression of cervical low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 11:4109–4116. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
13	Wilbur DC and Nayar R: The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: A historical perspectiv. Acta Cytologica. 61:359–372. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Tainio K, Athanasiou A, Tikkinen KAO, Aaltonen R, Cárdenas J, Hernándes, Glazer-Livson S, Jakobsson M, Joronen K, Kiviharju M, et al: Clinical course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 360:k4992018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Miralpeix E, Genovés J, Maria SSJ, Mancebo G, Lloveras B, Bellosillo B, Alameda F and Carreras R: Usefulness of p16^INK4a staining for managing histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial cervical lesions. Mod Pathol. 30:304–310. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Tavassoéli FA and Devilee P: Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. (Lyon). World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. 4322003.
17	Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS and Young RH: WHO classification of tumous of female reproductive organs. (Fourth edition). 3072014.
18	Miyamoto S, Hasegawa J, Morioka M, Hirota Y, Kushima M and Sekizawa A: The association between p16 and Ki-67 immunohistostaining and the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 134:45–48. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Maniar KP, Sanchez B, Paintal A, Gursel DB and Nayar R: Role of the biomarker p16 in downgrading-IN 2 diagnoses and predicting higher-grade lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 39:1708–1718. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Nuño T and García F: The lower anogenital squamous terminology project and its implications for clinical care. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 40:225–233. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Galgano MT, Castle PE, Atkins KA, Brix WK, Nassau SR and Stoler MH: Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 34:1077–1087. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Guang-Dong L, Sellors JW, Hai-Kui S, Xun Z, Yan-Ping B, Jose J, Wen C, Fang-Hui Z, Yan S, Zhi C, et al: p16INK4A immunohistochemical staining and predictive value for progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1: A prospective study in China. Int J Cancer. 134:1715–1724. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Maryam R, Andrée S, Oligny LL, Patey N, Dormoy-Raclet V, Ducruet T and Bouron-Dal Soglio D: Assessment of correlation between p16INK4a staining, specific subtype of human papillomavirus, and progression of LSIL/CIN1 lesions: First comparative study. Am J Clin Pathol. 142:104–110. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Sun L, Zhang L, Krigman HR and Hagemann IS: p16 immunohistochemistry is not always required for accurate diagnosis of grade 2 squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 22:104–109. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Fan Y and Shen Z: The clinical value of HPV E6/E7 and STAT3 mRNA detection in cervical cancer screening. Pathol Res Pract. 214:767–775. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Gernot H, Mahmood M, Kerstin ID, Pischinger, Thomas WR, Christian FS, Kubista E and Czerwenka KF: Physical state and expression of HPV DNA in benign and dysplastic cervical tissue: Different levels of viral integration are correlated with lesion grade. Gynecol Oncol. 92:873–880. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Holm R, Kraus I, Skomedal H, Langerød A, Kristensen GB and Lyng H: Human papillomavirus DNA and e6/e7 mRNA status in relation to survival of patients treated for cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Open Virol J. 2:74–81. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Frega A, Sesti F, Lombardi D, Votano S, Sopracordevole F, Catalano A, Milazzo GN, Lombardo R, Assorgi C, Olivola S, et al: Assessment of HPV-mRNA test to predict recurrent disease in patients previously treated for CIN 2/3. J Clin Virol. 60:39–43. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Coquillard G, Palao B and Patterson BK: Quantification of intracellular HPV E6/E7 mRNA expression increases the specificity and positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening compared to HPV DNA. Gynecol Oncol. 120:89–93. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Steenbergen RDM, Snijders PJF, Heideman DLAM and Meijer CJLM: Clinical implications of (Epi)genetic changes in HPV-induced cervical precancerous lesions. Nat Rev Cancer. 14:395–405. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Baak JPA, Arnold-Jan K, Garland SM, Skaland I, Janssen EAM, Tabrizi S, Fagerheim S, Robboy S and Nilsen ST: Combined p53 and retinoblastoma protein detection identifies persistent and regressive cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:1062–1066. 2005.PubMed/NCBI