Cervical preneoplasia biomarkers: a conundrum for the community based gynecologic surgical pathologist

Classifying Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2 Based on LAST Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) recommendations classify human papillomavirus-associated squamous lesions into low- and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs/HSILs). Our study aimed to assess interobserver agreement among 6 experienced pathologists in assigning 40 anal lesions previously diagnosed as anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (AIN 2) to either HSIL or non-HSIL categories.

METHODS

Agreement based on photomicrographs of H&E alone or H&E plus p16 immunohistochemistry was calculated using κ coefficients.

RESULTS

Agreement was fair based on H&E alone (κ = 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.52). Adding p16 improved agreement to moderate (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62). On final diagnosis, 21 cases (53%) had unanimous diagnoses, and 19 (47%) were divided. When designating p16 results as positive or negative, agreement was excellent (κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95). Among variables (staining location, extent, and intensity), staining of the basal/parabasal layers was a consistent feature in cases with consensus for positive results (20/20). Of the 67 H&E diagnoses with conflicting p16 results, participants modified 32 (48%), downgrading 23 HSILs and upgrading 9 non-HSILs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although p16 increased interobserver agreement, disagreement remained considerable regarding intermediate lesions. p16 expression, particularly if negative, can reduce unwarranted HSIL diagnoses and unnecessary treatment.

Using p16 immunohistochemistry to classify morphologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: correlation of ambiguous staining patterns with HPV subtypes and clinical outcome

p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used to facilitate the diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cervical precancerous lesions. Although most p16 results are distinctly positive or negative, certain ones are ambiguous: they meet some but not all requirements for the "block-positive" pattern. It is unclear whether ambiguous p16 immunoreactivity indicates oncogenic HPV infection or risk of progression. Herein, we compared HPV genotypes and subsequent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) outcomes among 220 cervical biopsies with a differential diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 based on hematoxylin and eosin morphology and varying degrees of p16 immunoreactivity. p16 results were classified as block positive (n=40, 18%), negative (n=130, 59%), or ambiguous (n=50, 23%), a category we further grouped into 3 patterns: strong/basal (n=18), strong/focal (n=15), and weak/diffuse (n=17). Seventy percent of ambiguous p16 lesions were negative for the most common low- and high-risk HPV types; the remaining 30% were positive for HPV 16, 18, 45, 58, 59, or 66. Three patterns revealed comparably low HPV detection rates (28%, 27%, and 35%). During 12-month surveillance, HSILs were detected in 35% of the p16 block-positive group, 1.5% of negative group, and 16% of the ambiguous group. The accuracy of ambiguous p16 immunoreactivity in predicting oncogenic HPV and HSIL outcome is significantly lower than that of the block-positive pattern but greater than negative staining. Specific guidelines for this intermediate category should prevent diagnostic errors and help implement p16 IHC in general practice.