Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies

Mary T. Galgano, Philip E. Castle, Kristen A. Atkins, William K. Brix, Sarah R. Nassau, Mark H. Stoler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

168 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Histopathologic diagnosis of cervical biopsies determines clinical management of patients with an abnormal cervical cancer-screening test yet is prone to poor interobserver reproducibility. Immunohistochemical staining for biomarkers related to the different stages of cervical carcinogenesis may provide objective standards to reduce diagnostic variability of cervical biopsy evaluations but systematic, rigorous evaluations of their potential clinical utility are lacking. To address diagnostic utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1, p16INK4a, and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining for improving diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a community-based and population-based evaluation using 1455 consecutive cervical biopsies submitted to the Department of Pathology at the University of Virginia during a period of 14 months. Thin-sections of each biopsy from 1451 of 1455 (99.7%) biopsies underwent evaluation of immunohistochemical stains for the 3 biomarkers, masked to the original diagnosis, and the results were compared with an adjudicated, consensus diagnosis by 3 pathologists. p16INK4a immunostaining, using the strongest staining as the cutpoint, was 86.7% sensitive and 82.8% specific for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe (CIN2 +) diagnoses. The performance of p16INK4a was more sensitive (P<0.001), less specific (P<0.001), and of similar overall accuracy for CIN2 compared with the combined performance of all pathologist reviews in routine clinical diagnostic service (sensitivity=68.9%, specificity=97.2%). Ki-67 immunostaining was also strongly associated with a CIN2+ diagnosis but its performance at all staining intensities was inferior to p16INK4a immunostaining, and did not increase the accuracy of CIN2+ diagnosis when combined with p16 immunostaining compared with p16 immunostaining alone. We found no utility for L1 immunostaining in distinguishing between CIN and non-CIN. In conclusion, with a rigorous evaluation, we found immunohistochemical staining for p16 to be a useful and reliable diagnostic adjunct for distinguishing biopsies with and without CIN2+.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1077-1087
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume34
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biomarkers
Biopsy
Staining and Labeling
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Diagnostic Services
Early Detection of Cancer
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Carcinogenesis
Coloring Agents
Pathology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Population
Neoplasms
Pathologists

Keywords

  • biomarker
  • CIN
  • HPV
  • interobserver
  • Ki-67
  • p16

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. / Galgano, Mary T.; Castle, Philip E.; Atkins, Kristen A.; Brix, William K.; Nassau, Sarah R.; Stoler, Mark H.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 34, No. 8, 08.2010, p. 1077-1087.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Galgano, Mary T. ; Castle, Philip E. ; Atkins, Kristen A. ; Brix, William K. ; Nassau, Sarah R. ; Stoler, Mark H. / Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2010 ; Vol. 34, No. 8. pp. 1077-1087.
@article{cb2de6d92a7a466fb1ab53b533a84314,
title = "Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies",
abstract = "Histopathologic diagnosis of cervical biopsies determines clinical management of patients with an abnormal cervical cancer-screening test yet is prone to poor interobserver reproducibility. Immunohistochemical staining for biomarkers related to the different stages of cervical carcinogenesis may provide objective standards to reduce diagnostic variability of cervical biopsy evaluations but systematic, rigorous evaluations of their potential clinical utility are lacking. To address diagnostic utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1, p16INK4a, and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining for improving diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a community-based and population-based evaluation using 1455 consecutive cervical biopsies submitted to the Department of Pathology at the University of Virginia during a period of 14 months. Thin-sections of each biopsy from 1451 of 1455 (99.7{\%}) biopsies underwent evaluation of immunohistochemical stains for the 3 biomarkers, masked to the original diagnosis, and the results were compared with an adjudicated, consensus diagnosis by 3 pathologists. p16INK4a immunostaining, using the strongest staining as the cutpoint, was 86.7{\%} sensitive and 82.8{\%} specific for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe (CIN2 +) diagnoses. The performance of p16INK4a was more sensitive (P<0.001), less specific (P<0.001), and of similar overall accuracy for CIN2 compared with the combined performance of all pathologist reviews in routine clinical diagnostic service (sensitivity=68.9{\%}, specificity=97.2{\%}). Ki-67 immunostaining was also strongly associated with a CIN2+ diagnosis but its performance at all staining intensities was inferior to p16INK4a immunostaining, and did not increase the accuracy of CIN2+ diagnosis when combined with p16 immunostaining compared with p16 immunostaining alone. We found no utility for L1 immunostaining in distinguishing between CIN and non-CIN. In conclusion, with a rigorous evaluation, we found immunohistochemical staining for p16 to be a useful and reliable diagnostic adjunct for distinguishing biopsies with and without CIN2+.",
keywords = "biomarker, CIN, HPV, interobserver, Ki-67, p16",
author = "Galgano, {Mary T.} and Castle, {Philip E.} and Atkins, {Kristen A.} and Brix, {William K.} and Nassau, {Sarah R.} and Stoler, {Mark H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "1077--1087",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using Biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies

AU - Galgano, Mary T.

AU - Castle, Philip E.

AU - Atkins, Kristen A.

AU - Brix, William K.

AU - Nassau, Sarah R.

AU - Stoler, Mark H.

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Histopathologic diagnosis of cervical biopsies determines clinical management of patients with an abnormal cervical cancer-screening test yet is prone to poor interobserver reproducibility. Immunohistochemical staining for biomarkers related to the different stages of cervical carcinogenesis may provide objective standards to reduce diagnostic variability of cervical biopsy evaluations but systematic, rigorous evaluations of their potential clinical utility are lacking. To address diagnostic utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1, p16INK4a, and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining for improving diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a community-based and population-based evaluation using 1455 consecutive cervical biopsies submitted to the Department of Pathology at the University of Virginia during a period of 14 months. Thin-sections of each biopsy from 1451 of 1455 (99.7%) biopsies underwent evaluation of immunohistochemical stains for the 3 biomarkers, masked to the original diagnosis, and the results were compared with an adjudicated, consensus diagnosis by 3 pathologists. p16INK4a immunostaining, using the strongest staining as the cutpoint, was 86.7% sensitive and 82.8% specific for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe (CIN2 +) diagnoses. The performance of p16INK4a was more sensitive (P<0.001), less specific (P<0.001), and of similar overall accuracy for CIN2 compared with the combined performance of all pathologist reviews in routine clinical diagnostic service (sensitivity=68.9%, specificity=97.2%). Ki-67 immunostaining was also strongly associated with a CIN2+ diagnosis but its performance at all staining intensities was inferior to p16INK4a immunostaining, and did not increase the accuracy of CIN2+ diagnosis when combined with p16 immunostaining compared with p16 immunostaining alone. We found no utility for L1 immunostaining in distinguishing between CIN and non-CIN. In conclusion, with a rigorous evaluation, we found immunohistochemical staining for p16 to be a useful and reliable diagnostic adjunct for distinguishing biopsies with and without CIN2+.

AB - Histopathologic diagnosis of cervical biopsies determines clinical management of patients with an abnormal cervical cancer-screening test yet is prone to poor interobserver reproducibility. Immunohistochemical staining for biomarkers related to the different stages of cervical carcinogenesis may provide objective standards to reduce diagnostic variability of cervical biopsy evaluations but systematic, rigorous evaluations of their potential clinical utility are lacking. To address diagnostic utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1, p16INK4a, and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining for improving diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a community-based and population-based evaluation using 1455 consecutive cervical biopsies submitted to the Department of Pathology at the University of Virginia during a period of 14 months. Thin-sections of each biopsy from 1451 of 1455 (99.7%) biopsies underwent evaluation of immunohistochemical stains for the 3 biomarkers, masked to the original diagnosis, and the results were compared with an adjudicated, consensus diagnosis by 3 pathologists. p16INK4a immunostaining, using the strongest staining as the cutpoint, was 86.7% sensitive and 82.8% specific for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe (CIN2 +) diagnoses. The performance of p16INK4a was more sensitive (P<0.001), less specific (P<0.001), and of similar overall accuracy for CIN2 compared with the combined performance of all pathologist reviews in routine clinical diagnostic service (sensitivity=68.9%, specificity=97.2%). Ki-67 immunostaining was also strongly associated with a CIN2+ diagnosis but its performance at all staining intensities was inferior to p16INK4a immunostaining, and did not increase the accuracy of CIN2+ diagnosis when combined with p16 immunostaining compared with p16 immunostaining alone. We found no utility for L1 immunostaining in distinguishing between CIN and non-CIN. In conclusion, with a rigorous evaluation, we found immunohistochemical staining for p16 to be a useful and reliable diagnostic adjunct for distinguishing biopsies with and without CIN2+.

KW - biomarker

KW - CIN

KW - HPV

KW - interobserver

KW - Ki-67

KW - p16

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955155277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955155277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4

DO - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 1077

EP - 1087

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 8

ER -