Author:
Qiu Shikang,Wang Qiannan,Jiang Huihui,Feng Limin
Abstract
Abstract
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
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
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
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.
Funder
Beijing Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference25 articles.
1. 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).
2. Moore DH. Cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(5):1152–61.
3. 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.
4. Martin-Hirsch PPL, Paraskevaidis E, Bryant A, et al. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(12):CD001318.
5. 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.