| Autor: |
Ebisch RM; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., van der Horst J; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Hermsen M; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Rijstenberg LL; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Vedder JE; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Bulten J; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Bosgraaf RP; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Verhoef VM; Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Heideman DA; Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Snijders PJ; Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Meijer CJ; Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., van Kemenade FJ; Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Massuger LF; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Melchers WJ; Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Bekkers RL; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Siebers AG; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. |
| Abstrakt: |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of p16/Ki-67 dual staining, for the identification of CIN in high-risk HPV-positive women from a non-responder screening cohort. P16/Ki-67 dual staining, Pap cytology, and HPV16/18 genotyping were performed on physician-taken liquid-based samples from 495 women who tested high-risk HPV positive on self-sampled material (PROHTECT-3B study). Different triage strategies involving p16/Ki-67 dual staining were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value for ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3, and compared to Pap cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance. Centrally revised histology or an adjusted endpoint with combined high-risk HPV negative and cytology negative follow-up at 6 months was used as gold standard. Pap cytology (threshold atypical cells of undetermined significance) triage of high-risk HPV-positive samples showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 85-98) with a specificity of 49% (95% confidence interval: 41-56) for ≥CIN3. Three triage strategies with p16/Ki-67 showed a significantly increased specificity with similar sensitivity. P16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84-97) and a specificity of 61% (95% confidence interval: 54-69) for ≥CIN3. Applying p16/Ki-67 triage to only high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade Pap cytology showed a similar sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84-97), with a specificity for ≥CIN3 of 64% (95% confidence interval: 56-71). For high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade and normal Pap cytology, triage with p16/Ki-67 showed a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval: 89-99), and a specificity of 58% (95% confidence interval: 50-65). HPV16/18 genotyping combined with Pap cytology showed a sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 similar to Pap cytology with an atypical cells of undetermined significance threshold. Because the quality of Pap cytology worldwide varies, and differences in sensitivity and specificity are limited between the three selected strategies, p16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples would be the most reliable strategy in triage of high-risk HPV-positive women with an increased specificity and similar sensitivity compared with Pap cytology triage. |
Full text from SpringerLink