Objective: We evaluated the performance of cytologic p16INK4a (p16) immunostaining within a cervical cancer screening program for the categories of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LS after triage with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing and atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade intraepithelial squamous lesion (ASC-H) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). We also verified whether the routine introduction of p16 staining might enhance the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) lesions predicted by a cytological screening test. Study Design: Performance of the p16 cytology test was estimated in 578 cytological samples, of which 213 were HR-HPV+ ASC-US, 186 were HR-HPV+ LSIL, 74 were ASC-H, 56 were HSIL-CIN2 and 49 were HSIL-CIN3. All samples had histological follow-up. Results: In the ASC-US category, p16 sensitivity was 91% for CIN2+ and 100% for CIN3, while specificity was 64 and 58%, respectively, negative predictive value (NPV) was 96 and 100%, respectively, and PPV was 39%. In the LSIL category, sensitivity was 77 and 75%, respectively, for CIN2+ and CIN3, while specificity was 64 and 57%, NPV was 93 and 98% and PPV was 30%. Sensitivity for ASC-H and HSIL-CIN3 was 100% for CIN2+ and CIN3, while for HSIL-CIN2 it was 91 and 95%, respectively; NPV for ASC-H was 100%, and for HSIL-CIN2 it was 43 and 86%, respectively. Follow-up examinations of 8 cases diagnosed as p16+ ASC-H and HSIL-CIN3, but histologically negative or CIN1 on the first biopsy, showed 4 CIN2 and 4 CIN3 lesions. Conclusions: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV confirm the importance of the utilization of p16 in the categories ASC-US and LSIL after triage with an HR-HPV test. In the ASC-H and HSIL-CIN3 lesions, p16 was shown to be an excellent marker for picking up CIN2+ lesions, especially in cases with cytohistological discordance.

1.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–2119.
2.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group: Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500–1505.
3.
Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001;94:153–156.
4.
Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12–19.
5.
Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, Sherman M, Jansen AM, Peto J, Schiffman MH, Moreno V, Kurman R, Shah KV: Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International Biological Study on Cervical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:796–802.
6.
Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD: Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Eng J Med 1998;338:423–428.
7.
Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al: Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007;370:890–907.
8.
Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R; ALTS Study Group: Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293–299.
9.
Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch J, Dillner J: Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:280–293.
10.
Solomon D, Schiffman M: Have we resolved how to triage equivocal cervical cytology? J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:250–251.
11.
Szarewski A, Ambroisine L, Cadman L, Austin J, et al: Comparison of predictor for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:3033–3042.
12.
Denton KJ, Bergeron C, Klement P, Trunk MJ, et al: The sensitivity and specificity of p16INK4a cytology vs. HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical disease in the triage of ASC-US and LSIL pap cytology results. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;134:12–21.
13.
Cuschieri K, Wentzensen N: Human papillomavirus and p16 detection as biomarkers for the improved diagnosis of cervical neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:2536–2545.
14.
Wentzensen N, von Knebel Doeberitz M: Biomarkers in cervical cancer screening. Dis Markers 2007;23:315–330.
15.
Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, et al: p16INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009;35:210–220.
16.
Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al: Overexpression of p16INK4a as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001;92:276–284.
17.
Bibbo M, Klump WJ, De Cecco J, Kovatich AJ: Procedure for immunocytochemical detection of p16INK4a antigen in thin-layer, liquid-based specimens. Acta Cytol 2002;46:25–29.
18.
Bibbo M, De Cecco J, Kovatich AJ: p16INK4a as an adjunct in liquid-based cytology. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2003;25:8–11.
19.
Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al: Over-expression of p16INK4a as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001;92:276–284.
20.
Agoff N, Lin P, Morihara J, Mao C, Kiviat N, Koutsky L: p16INK4a expression correlates with degree of cervical neoplasia: a comparison with Ki-67 expression and detection of high-risk HPV types. Mod Pathol 2003;16:665–673.
21.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J: Liquid compared with conventional cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167–177.
22.
Obwegeser J, Brack S: Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:709–714.
23.
Davey E, Barrat A, Irwig L: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classification, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122–132.
24.
Negri G, Moretto G, Menia E, et al: p16INK4a immunocytochemistry in liquid-based cervico-vaginal specimens with modified Papanicolaou counterstaining. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:827–830.
25.
Trunk MJ, Dallenbach-Hellweg G, Ridder R, et al: Morphologic characteristics of p16INK4a positive cells in cervical cytology samples. Acta Cytol 2004;48:771–782.
26.
Lea JS, Coleman R, Kurien A, Schorge J, et al: Aberrant p16 methylation is a biomarker for tobacco exposure in cervical squamous cell carcinogenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:674–679.
27.
Ostor AG: Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186–192.
28.
Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D: Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:18–25.
29.
Milicic-Juhas V, Pajtler M: Is the HSIL subclassification cytologically real and clinically justified? Coll Antropol 2010;34:395–400.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.