Evaluation of the clinical performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining cytology for cervical lesion detection in premenopausal and postmenopausal Chinese women

BACKGROUND

Studies on the clinical performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining in detecting cervical lesions by menopausal status were limited.

METHODS

4364 eligible women were enrolled with valid p16/Ki-67, HR-HPV, and LBC test results, including 542 cancer and 217 CIN2/3 cases. The positivity rates of p16 and Ki-67 single staining and p16/ Ki-67 dual-staining were analyzed by different pathological grades and age groups. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each test in different subgroups were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

P16/Ki-67 dual-staining positivity increased with histopathological severity in premenopausal and postmenopausal women (P < 0.05), while no increasing trends of individual expression of p16 single staining and Ki-67 single staining were observed in postmenopausal women. P16/Ki-67 showed higher SPE (88.09% vs. 81.91%, P < 0.001) and PPV (33.8% vs. 13.18%, P < 0.001) in detecting CIN2/3, and higher SEN (89.97% vs. 82.61%, P = 0.012) and SPE (83.22% vs. 79.89%, P = 0.011) in detecting cancer in premenopausal women than postmenopausal women. For triaging the HR-HPV+ population to identify CIN2/3, p16/Ki-67 performed comparably to LBC in the premenopausal women, and showed higher PPV (51.14% vs. 23.08%, P < 0.001) in premenopausal than postmenopausal women. For triaging ASC-US/LSIL population, p16/Ki-67 demonstrated higher SPE and lower colposcopy referral rate than HR-HPV in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressions of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining between premenopausal and postmenopausal women are varied. P16/Ki-67 performs better in detecting cervical lesions in premenopausal women. For triaging, p16/Ki-67 is suitable for HR-HPV+ women, especially premenopausal women, to identify CIN2/3 and women with ASC-US/LSIL.

[Assessment of the diagnostic value and prognosis of different detection markers in endocervical adenocarcinoma]

Objective: To study the diagnostic value of different detection markers in histological categories of endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA), and their assessment of patient prognosis. Methods: A retrospective study of 54 patients with ECA in the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from 2005-2010 were performed. The cases of ECA were classified into two categories, namely human papillomavirus-associated adenocarcinoma (HPVA) and non-human papillomavirus-associated adenocarcinoma (NHPVA), based on the 2018 international endocervical adenocarcinoma criteria and classification (IECC). To detect HR-HPV DNA and HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA in all patients, we used whole tissue section PCR (WTS-PCR) and HPV E6/E7 mRNA in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques, respectively. Additionally, we performed Laser microdissection PCR (LCM-PCR) on 15 randomly selected HR-HPV DNA-positive cases to confirm the accuracy of the above two assays in identifying ECA lesions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyze the efficacy of markers to identify HPVA and NHPVA. Univariate and multifactorial Cox proportional risk model regression analyses were performed for factors influencing ECA patients' prognoses. Results: Of the 54 patients with ECA, 30 were HPVA and 24 were NHPVA. A total of 96.7% (29/30) of HPVA patients were positive for HR-HPV DNA and 63.3% (19/30) for HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA, and 33.3% (8/24) of NHPVA patients were positive for HR-HPV DNA and HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA was not detected (0/24), and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.001). LCM-PCR showed that five patients were positive for HR-HPV DNA in the area of glandular epithelial lesions and others were negative, which was in good agreement with the E6/E7 mRNA ISH assay (Kappa=0.842, P=0.001). Analysis of the ROC results showed that the AUC of HR-HPV DNA, HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA, and p16 to identify HPVA and NHPVA were 0.817, 0.817, and 0.692, respectively, with sensitivities of 96.7%, 63.3%, and 80.0% and specificities of 66.7%, 100.0%, and 58.3%, respectively. HR-HPV DNA identified HPVA and NHPVA with higher AUC than p16 (P=0.044). The difference in survival rates between HR-HPV DNA (WTS-PCR assay) positive and negative patients was not statistically significant (P=0.156), while the difference in survival rates between HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA positive and negative patients, and p16 positive and negative patients were statistically significant (both P<0.05). Multifactorial Cox regression analysis showed that International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) staging (HR=19.875, 95% CI: 1.526-258.833) and parametrial involvement (HR=14.032, 95% CI: 1.281-153.761) were independent factors influencing the prognosis of patients with ECA. Conclusions: HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA is more reflective of HPV infection in ECA tissue. The efficacy of HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA and HR-HPV DNA (WTS-PCR assay) in identifying HPVA and NHPVA is similar, with higher sensitivity of HR-HPV DNA and higher specificity of HR-HPV E6/E7 mRNA. HR-HPV DNA is more effective than p16 in identifying HPVA and NHPVA. HPV E6/E7 mRNA and p16 positive ECA patients have better survival rates than negative.