Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 biopsy: Do p16INK4a and Ki-67 biomarkers contribute to the decision to treat? A cross-sectional study
Palavras-chave:
Uterine cervical dysplasia, Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21, Ki-67 antigen, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, CIN2, p16INK4a, Ki-67Resumo
BACKGROUND: Managing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) is challenging, considering the CIN2 regression rate, perinatal risks associated with excisional procedures, and insufficient well-established risk factors to predict progression.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the ability of p16INK4a and Ki-67 staining in biopsies diagnosed with CIN2 to identify patients with higher-grade lesions (CIN3 or carcinoma).
DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study conducted at a referral center for treating uterine cervical lesions.
METHODS: In 79 women, we analyzed the correlation of p16INK4a and Ki-67 expression in CIN2 biopsies with the presence of a higher-grade lesions, as determined via histopathology in surgical specimens from treated women or via two colposcopies and two cytological tests during follow-up for untreated women with at least a 6-month interval. The expression of these two biomarkers was verified by at least two independent pathologists and quantified using digital algorithms.
RESULTS: Thirteen (16.8%) women with CIN2 biopsy exhibited higher-grade lesions on the surgical excision specimen or during follow-up. p16INK4a expression positively and negatively predicted the presence of higher-grade lesions in 17.19% and 86.67% patients, respectively. Ki-67 expression positively and negatively predicted the presence of higher-grade lesions in 40% and 88.24% patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Negative p16INK4a and Ki67 immunohistochemical staining can assure absence of a higher-grade lesion in more than 85% of patients with CIN2 biopsies and can be used to prevent overtreatment of these patients. Positive IHC staining for p16INK4a and Ki-67 did not predict CIN3 in patients with CIN2 biopsies.
Downloads
Referências
Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population- based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ. 2009;339:b2968. PMID: 19638651; http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2968.
Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância. Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede. Brazilian Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2016. Available from: https:// www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files/media/document/ diretrizesparaorastreamentodocancerdocolodoutero_2016_corrigido. pdf. Accessed in 2023 (Jan 30).
Loopik DL, Bekkers RLM, Massuger LFAG, et al. Justifying conservative management of CIN2 in women younger than 25 years - A populationbased study. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):82-6. PMID: 30413339; https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.038.
Munro A, Powell RG, Cohen PA, et al. Spontaneous regression of CIN2 in women aged 18-24 years: a retrospective study of a statewide population in Western Australia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(3):291-8. PMID: 26660398; https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12835.
Godfrey MAL, Nikolopoulos M, Garner JE, et al. Conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) in women under 30 years of age: A cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:267-73. PMID: 30048921; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.018.
Bruno MT, Scalia G, Cassaro N, Costanzo M, Boemi S. Conservative management of CIN2 p16 positive lesions in women with multiple HPV infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):801. PMID: 33121447; https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05530-5.
Tainio K, Athanasiou A, Tikkinen KAO, et al. Clinical course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;360:k499. PMID: 29487049; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k499.
Salvadó A, Miralpeix E, Solé-Sedeno JM, et al. Predictor factors for conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2: Cytology and HPV genotyping. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(3):569-574. PMID: 34226019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.019.
Bjørge T, Skare GB, Bjørge L, Tropé A, Lönnberg S. Adverse pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1265-73. PMID: 27824756; https://doi.org/10.1097/ aog.0000000000001777.
Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Paraskevaidi M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i3633. PMID: 27469988; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3633.
Mark K, Frost A, Hussey H, et al. Rates of regression of cervical dysplasia between initial biopsy and excisional procedure in routine clinical practice. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(3):841-6. PMID: 30607589; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5026-8.
Underwood M, Arbyn M, Parry-Smith W, et al. Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2012;119(11):1293301. PMID: 22882742; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03444.x.
Kim SI, Kim SJ, Suh DH, et al. Pathologic discrepancies between colposcopy-directed biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure of the uterine cervix in women with cytologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;31(2):e13. PMID: 31912671; https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e13.
Collaço LM, Wendling LU, Noronha L, et al. Análise do controle de qualidade das biópsias e produtos de cirurgia de alta frequência no Programa de Prevenção do Câncer do Colo do Útero do estado do Paraná, Brasil. Rev Bras Cancerol. 2012;58:489-96. https://doi. org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2012v58n3.607.
Castle PE, Stoler MH, Solomon D, Schiffman M. The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: an ALTS report.
Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(5):805-15. PMID: 17439841; https://doi. org/10.1309/pt3pnc1ql2f4d2vl.
Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, 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. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(10):1266-97. PMID: 22742517; https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.lgt200570.
Reuschenbach M, Wentzensen N, Dijkstra MG, Doeberitz MK, Arbyn M. p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in cervical biopsy specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the interobserver agreement.
Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:767-772. PMID: 25389329; https://doi.
org/10.1309/ajcp3tphv4trizek.
Kanthiya K, Khunnarong J, Tangjitgamol S, Puripat N, Tanvanich S. Expression of the p16 and Ki67 in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions and cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:3201-3206. PMID: 27509952.
El-Zein M, Gotlieb W, Gilbert L, et al. Dual staining for p16/Ki-67 to detect high-grade cervical lesions: Results from the Screening Triage Ascertaining Intraepithelial Neoplasia by Immunostain Testing study. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(2):492-501. PMID: 32781481; http://doi.org/10.1002/ ijc.33250.
Miyamoto S, Hasegawa J, Morioka M, et al. The association between p16 and Ki-67 immunohistostaining and the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(1):458. PMID: 27233813; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.12.005.
Miralpeix E, Solé-Sedeño JM, Mancebo G, et al. Value of p16INK4a and Ki67 immunohistochemical staining in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 biopsies as biomarkers for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 in cone results. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol. 2016;38(1):1-
PMID: 27363060.
Pires ARC, Andreiuolo FM, Souza SR. TMA for all: a new method for the construction of tissue microarrays without recipient paraffin block using custom-built needles. Diagn Pathol. 2006;1:14. PMID: 16869973; https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-1-14.
Miralpeix E, Genovés J, Solé-Sedeño JM, et al. Usefulness of p16INK4a staining for managing histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial cervical lesions. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(2):304-10. PMID: 27739439; http://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.168.
Koeneman MM, Hendriks N, Kooreman LF, et al. Prognostic factors for spontaneous regression of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 2. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1003-9. PMID: 31079058; http://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019000343.
Romagosa C, Simonetti S, López-Vicente L, et al. p16(Ink4a) overexpression in cancer: a tumor suppressor gene associated with senescence and high-grade tumors. Oncogene. 2011;30(18):2087-97. PMID: 21297668; http://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.614.
Rayess H, Wang MB, Srivatsan ES. Cellular senescence and tumor suppressor gene p16. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(8):1715-25. PMID: 22025288; http://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27316.
Zhang X, Xu Y, Meng T, Shen D. Analysis of factors affecting the prognosis of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2. Oncol Lett. 2020;20(2):1810-
PMID: 32724424; http://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11711.
Castle PE, Adcock R, Cuzick J, et al. New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee; p16 IHC Study Panel. Relationships of p16
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 São Paulo Medical Journal
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
