4.6 Article

Performance of p16/Ki67 immunostaining, HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing, and HPV DNA assay to detect high-grade cervical dysplasia in women with ASCUS

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5492-9

关键词

HPV; E6; E7; mRNA; p16; Ki67; ASCUS; CIN

类别

资金

  1. science and technology department's major program of Henan, China [161100311100]
  2. national health and family planning commission in China [201601010]
  3. education department's Project of Henan, China [19A320052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundAtypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASCUS) is a common cervical cytological diagnosis. At present, HPV DNA assay is used to triage these patients, but its lower specificity brings a series of problems. The purpose of this study was to evaluated the value of p16/Ki67 immunostaining, HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing in triaging women with ASCUS by comparing HPV DNA assay.MethodsLiquid based cytology specimens were collected from 300 patients. P16/Ki67 immunocytochemistry using the CINtec (R) Plus Kit and HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing by QuantiVirus (R) HPV E6/E7 mRNA assay used the same cytology sample. Detection rates of each test were evaluated against histopathology.ResultsAll assays yielded a high sensitivity for the detection of CIN3+ (100% (86.7-100) for HPV DNA assay, 88.0% (70.0-95.8) for HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing and 100% (86.7-100) for p16/Ki67 immunocytochemistry) and CIN2+ (98.2% (90.2-99.7) for HPV DNA assay, 87.0% (75.6-93.6) for HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing, 98.2% (90.2-99.7) for p16/Ki67 immunocytochemistry). The specificity to detect high grade dysplasia was highest for p16/Ki67 immunocytochemistry (74.2% (68.7-79.0) in CIN3+ and 82.5% (77.3-86.8) in CIN2+), followed by HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing (39.6% (34.0-45.5) in CIN3+ and 42.7% (36.7-48.9) in CIN2+) and HPV DNA assay (16.0% (12.1-20.8) in CIN3+ and 17.5% (13.2-22.7) in CIN2+).Conclusionsp16/Ki67 immunostaining and HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing, especially the former, may be promising tools in triage of ASCUS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据