Immunohistochemistry staining of Eag1 and p16/Ki-67 can help improve the management of patients with cervical intraepithelial Neoplasia after cold knife conversion.
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Eag1
Follow-up
Ki-67
p16
Journal
Diagnostic pathology
ISSN: 1746-1596
Titre abrégé: Diagn Pathol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101251558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jul 2024
11 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
01
06
2024
accepted:
01
07
2024
medline:
12
7
2024
pubmed:
12
7
2024
entrez:
11
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used in the management of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) but still has many limitations in clinical practice. We analyzed the correlation of new biomarkers with the severity of CIN and follow-up outcomes in patients after conization to improve the management of patients with CIN. IHC staining of Eag1 and p16/Ki-67 was performed on cervical tissue sections from 234 patients with suspected CIN2/3. After a series of follow-ups, including human papillomavirus (HPV) test and thinprep cytologic test (TCT) for 1-2 years, the outcomes were collected. IHC scores of biomarkers and follow-up results were used to analyze the correlation and assess the diagnostic efficiency of biomarkers. The IHC staining intensity of Eag1 and p16/Ki-67 was significantly different from that of the CIN1-3 groups (p < 0.05). Eag1 expression scores were significantly different in the distribution between the two follow-up groups (p < 0.001). ROC curves based on the correlations between the follow-up outcomes and the Eag1 scores and IS of p16/ki-67 showed that Eag1 had a greater AUC (0.767 vs. 0.666). Logistic regression analysis of the combination of biomarkers revealed a greater AUC value than any single biomarker. Eag1 expression was significantly correlated with CIN grade and follow-up outcomes after conization. IHC staining of combinations of biomarkers of Eag1, p16 and Ki-67 may help us to improve the ability to identify risk groups with abnormal follow-up outcomes after treatment for CIN.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used in the management of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) but still has many limitations in clinical practice. We analyzed the correlation of new biomarkers with the severity of CIN and follow-up outcomes in patients after conization to improve the management of patients with CIN.
METHODS
METHODS
IHC staining of Eag1 and p16/Ki-67 was performed on cervical tissue sections from 234 patients with suspected CIN2/3. After a series of follow-ups, including human papillomavirus (HPV) test and thinprep cytologic test (TCT) for 1-2 years, the outcomes were collected. IHC scores of biomarkers and follow-up results were used to analyze the correlation and assess the diagnostic efficiency of biomarkers.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The IHC staining intensity of Eag1 and p16/Ki-67 was significantly different from that of the CIN1-3 groups (p < 0.05). Eag1 expression scores were significantly different in the distribution between the two follow-up groups (p < 0.001). ROC curves based on the correlations between the follow-up outcomes and the Eag1 scores and IS of p16/ki-67 showed that Eag1 had a greater AUC (0.767 vs. 0.666). Logistic regression analysis of the combination of biomarkers revealed a greater AUC value than any single biomarker.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Eag1 expression was significantly correlated with CIN grade and follow-up outcomes after conization. IHC staining of combinations of biomarkers of Eag1, p16 and Ki-67 may help us to improve the ability to identify risk groups with abnormal follow-up outcomes after treatment for CIN.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38992635
doi: 10.1186/s13000-024-01523-z
pii: 10.1186/s13000-024-01523-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16
0
Ki-67 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CDKN2A protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
97Subventions
Organisme : Beijing Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : J200002
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hildesheim A, Gonzalez P, Kreimer AR et al. Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 vaccination on prevalent infections and rates of cervical lesions after excisional treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2).
Moore DH. Cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(5):1152–61.
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000215986.48590.79
pubmed: 16648423
Musunuru HB, Pifer PM, Mohindra P, et al. Advances in management of locally advanced cervical cancer. Indian J Med Res. 2021;154(2):248–61.
doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1047_20
pubmed: 35142642
pmcid: 9131769
Martin-Hirsch PPL, Paraskevaidis E, Bryant A, et al. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(12):CD001318.
pubmed: 24302546
pmcid: 8958508
Horn L-C, Reichert A, Oster A, et al. Immunostaining for p16INK4a used as a conjunctive tool improves interobserver agreement of the histologic diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(4):502–12.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31815ac420
pubmed: 18223479
Hoffman SR, Le T, Lockhart A et al. Patterns of persistent HPV infection after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(1).
Clarke MA, Wentzensen N, Perkins RB, et al. Recommendations for Use of p16/Ki67 dual stain for management of individuals testing positive for human papillomavirus. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2024;28(2):124–30.
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000802
pubmed: 38446575
van Zummeren M, Leeman A, Kremer WW, et al. Three-tiered score for Ki-67 and p16ink4a improves accuracy and reproducibility of grading CIN lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71(11):981–88.
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205271
pubmed: 30012698
Miralpeix E, Solé-Sedeño JM, Mancebo G, et al. Value of p16(INK4a) and Ki-67 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):1–8.
pubmed: 27363060
Wang X, Zhao Y, Zou X, et al. Relationship of P16 and Ki67 in recurrence of HPV infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2020;13(12):3174–80.
pubmed: 33425118
pmcid: 7791391
Zhong P, Li J, Gu Y, et al. P16 and Ki-67 expression improves the diagnostic accuracy of cervical lesions but not predict persistent high risk human papillomavirus infection with CIN1. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(3):2979–86.
pubmed: 26045807
pmcid: 4440116
Otero-Sobrino Á, Blanco-Carlón P, Navarro-Aguadero MÁ, et al. Mechanosensitive Ion channels: their physiological importance and potential key role in Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:18.
doi: 10.3390/ijms241813710
Pardo LA, Sühmer W. Eag1 as a cancer target. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2008;12(7):837–43.
doi: 10.1517/14728222.12.7.837
pubmed: 18554152
Rodríguez-Rasgado JA, Acuña-Macías I, Camacho J. Eag1 channels as potential cancer biomarkers. Sens (Basel). 2012;12(5):5986–95.
doi: 10.3390/s120505986
Díaz L, Ceja-Ochoa I, Restrepo-Angulo I, et al. Estrogens and human papilloma virus oncogenes regulate human ether-à-go-go-1 potassium channel expression. Cancer Res. 2009;69(8):3300–07.
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2036
pubmed: 19351862
Wang X, Chen Y, Liu H, et al. A novel anti-cancer mechanism of Nutlin-3 through downregulation of Eag1 channel and PI3K/AKT pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019;517(3):445–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.07.106
pubmed: 31378368
Mo L-Z, Song H-L, Wang J-L, et al. Pap smear combined with HPV testing: a reasonable Tool for women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treated by LEEP. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(10):4297–302.
doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.10.4297
pubmed: 26028089
Howitt BE, Nucci MR, Drapkin R, et al. Stathmin-1 expression as a complement to p16 helps identify high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with increased specificity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(1):89–97.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182753f5a
pubmed: 23211296
Lorenzato M, Caudroy S, Bronner C, et al. Cell cycle and/or proliferation markers: what is the best method to discriminate cervical high-grade lesions? Hum Pathol. 2005;36(10):1101–07.
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.07.016
pubmed: 16226110
Murphy N, Ring M, Heffron CCBB, et al. p16INK4A, CDC6, and MCM5: predictive biomarkers in cervical preinvasive neoplasia and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(5):525–34.
doi: 10.1136/jcp.2004.018895
pubmed: 15858126
pmcid: 1770660
Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(3):210–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.10.005
pubmed: 19261387
pmcid: 2784486
Negri G, Vittadello F, Romano F, et al. p16INK4a expression and progression risk of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix uteri. Virchows Arch. 2004;445(6):616–20.
doi: 10.1007/s00428-004-1127-9
pubmed: 15480761
Ebisch RMF, Rovers MM, Bosgraaf RP, et al. Evidence supporting see-and-treat management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(1):59–66.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13530
pubmed: 26177672
Kocken M, Helmerhorst TJM, Berkhof J, et al. Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):441–50.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70078-X
pubmed: 21530398
Andersson S, Safari H, Mints M, et al. Type distribution, viral load and integration status of high-risk human papillomaviruses in pre-stages of cervical cancer (CIN). Br J Cancer. 2005;92(12):2195–200.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602648
pubmed: 15942630
pmcid: 2361820