4.3 Article

The Sensitivity and Specificity of p16INK4a Cytology vs HPV Testing for Detecting High-Grade Cervical Disease in the Triage of ASC-US and LSIL Pap Cytology Results

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 134, Issue 1, Pages 12-21

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP3CD9YKYFJDQL

Keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical cytology; Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; ASC-US; Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; LSIL; Triage; p16(INK4a); Immunocytochemistry; Human papillomavirus; HPV

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We analyzed the performance of p16(INK4a) immunocytochemistry on a series of 810 retrospectively collected atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cases with available biopsy follow-up data, including 94 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and 128 cases of UN 3. Human papillomavirus (HP V) testing was performed from the same residual liquid-based cytologic specimen, and results for both tests were correlated with histologic follow-up data. Sensitivity values for high-grade CIN (HGCIN) confirmed on biopsy within 6 months were 92.6% (ASC-US) and 92.2% (LSIL) for cytotechnologists' reviews of p16 cytology and 90.1% (ASC-US) and 95.7% (LSIL) for HPV testing. Sensitivity rates of initial pathologists' reviews were slightly lower, 76.4% to 80.1%, with levels comparable to cytotechnologists' results after adjudication. The specificity of p16 cytology for HGCIN detection was significantly higher than for HPV testing for cytotechnologists and pathologists: 63.2% to 71.1% (p16 cytology) vs 37.8% for HPV in ASC-US (P < .001) and 37.3% 10 53.3% (p16 cytology) vs 18.5% for HPV in LSIL (P < .001). This evaluation of the diagnostic performance of p16 cytology confirms the potential of this stain for the efficient triage of ASC-US and LSIL cytologic results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available