LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,113
تعداد مقالات10,208
تعداد مشاهده مقاله40,780,473
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,804,153
Sari Aslani, Fatemeh, Zolmajdi, Najmeh, Akbarzadeh-Jahromi, Mojgan, Momtahan, Mozhdeh, Torfenezhad, Parnia. (1399). Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 45(6), 469-476. doi: 10.30476/ijms.2020.72707.0
Fatemeh Sari Aslani; Najmeh Zolmajdi; Mojgan Akbarzadeh-Jahromi; Mozhdeh Momtahan; Parnia Torfenezhad. "Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 45, 6, 1399, 469-476. doi: 10.30476/ijms.2020.72707.0
Sari Aslani, Fatemeh, Zolmajdi, Najmeh, Akbarzadeh-Jahromi, Mojgan, Momtahan, Mozhdeh, Torfenezhad, Parnia. (1399). 'Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 45(6), pp. 469-476. doi: 10.30476/ijms.2020.72707.0
Sari Aslani, Fatemeh, Zolmajdi, Najmeh, Akbarzadeh-Jahromi, Mojgan, Momtahan, Mozhdeh, Torfenezhad, Parnia. Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1399; 45(6): 469-476. doi: 10.30476/ijms.2020.72707.0

Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy

Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences
مقاله 8، دوره 45، شماره 6، بهمن 2020، صفحه 469-476    اصل مقاله (1.03 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Article(s)
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijms.2020.72707.0
نویسندگان
Fatemeh Sari Aslani1؛ Najmeh Zolmajdi2؛ Mojgan Akbarzadeh-Jahromi* 3؛ Mozhdeh Momtahan4؛ Parnia Torfenezhad2
1Maternal-fetal Medicine Research Center, Department of Pathology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
2Department of Pathology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3Maternal-fetal Medicine Research Center, Department of Pathology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده
Background: Cervical conization is a standard diagnostic method for precancerous lesions. However, its results could be negative despite an initially positive punch biopsy. The present study aimed to re-evaluate pathological biopsies with Ki-67 and p16 immunostaining to assess the diagnostic accuracy of punch biopsies.
Methods: This retrospective study performed in Motahhari Clinic and Shahid Faghihi Hospital, (Shiraz, Iran). 88 punch and cone biopsy slides from 2007-2016 were re-evaluated by two pathologists, and the results were compared with the original diagnoses. Agreement between the initial diagnoses and re-evaluations and between our pathologists were assessed with the kappa coefficient. Twenty-two negative conization results after positive punch biopsy were re-sectioned and evaluated with Ki-67 and p16 immunostaining.
Results: The overall agreement (kappa) between the primary punch diagnoses by the original pathologists and those made in the present study (by the first and second pathologists) before immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was 0.33 and 0.43, respectively. The kappa coefficient between punch biopsy diagnoses by the first and second pathologists before IHC staining was 0.73, while it increased to one after IHC staining with Ki-67 and p16. Out of the 22 specimens with the positive punch and negative cone biopsies on initial diagnosis, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was not confirmed in 11 specimens by our pathologists after IHC staining with Ki-67 and p16. These cases were reclassified as transitional metaplasia or acute/chronic cervicitis.
Conclusion: Punch biopsy can be misdiagnosed as CIN positive, leading to unnecessary conization. The use of Ki-67 and p16 markers as appropriate ancillary tests are recommended.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Cervix uteri؛ Conization؛ Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia؛ Immunohistochemistry
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Chaichian S, Khateri S, Moradi Y, Shadmani FK, Mansori K, Khazaei Z, et al. Trends in cervical cancer incidence in Iran from 2003 to 2009. Middle East Journal of Cancer. 2018;9:57-63.
  2. Sari Aslani F, Safaei A, Pourjabali M, Momtahan M. Evaluation of Ki67, p16 and CK17 Markers in Differentiating Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Benign Lesions. Iran J Med Sci. 2013;38:15-21. PubMed PMID: 23645953; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3642940.
  3. Kanthiya K, Khunnarong J, Tangjitgamol S, Puripat N, Tanvanich S. Expression of the p16 and Ki67 in Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions and Cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:3201-6. PubMed PMID: 27509952.
  4. Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE, Smith K, Mathews C, Gold MA, et al. Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4154-62. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0270. PubMed PMID: 22675168; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4237612.
  5. Wright TC, Jr., Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:346-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.07.047. PubMed PMID: 17904957.
  6. Murta EF, Silva AO, Silva EA. Clinical significance of a negative loop electrosurgical excision procedure, conization and hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27:50-2. PubMed PMID: 16550969.
  7. Nam K, Ryu A, Jeon S, Kim J, Kwak J, Park B. Clinical significance of a negative loop electrosurgical excision procedure biopsy in patients with biopsy-confirmed high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19:103-9. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000061. PubMed PMID: 25105718.
  8. Diakomanolis E, Haidopoulos D, Chatzipapas I, Rodolakis A, Stefanidis K, Markaki S. Negative cone biopsies. A reappraisal. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:617-21. PubMed PMID: 12971142.
  9. Costa S, Nuzzo MD, Rubino A, Rambelli V, Marinelli M, Santini D, et al. Independent determinants of inaccuracy of colposcopically directed punch biopsy of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:57-63. doi: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00202-6. PubMed PMID: 12821342.
  10. Bergeron C, Ordi J, Schmidt D, Trunk MJ, Keller T, Ridder R, et al. Conjunctive p16INK4a testing significantly increases accuracy in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133:395-406. doi: 10.1309/AJCPXSVCDZ3D5MZM. PubMed PMID: 20154278.
  11. Galgano MT, Castle PE, Atkins KA, Brix WK, Nassau SR, Stoler MH. Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1077-87. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e8b2c4. PubMed PMID: 20661011; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2921638.
  12. Klaes R, Benner A, Friedrich T, Ridder R, Herrington S, Jenkins D, et al. p16INK4a immunohistochemistry improves interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1389-99. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200211000-00001. PubMed PMID: 12409715.
  13. Byrom J, Douce G, Jones PW, Tucker H, Millinship J, Dhar K, et al. Should punch biopsies be used when high-grade disease is suspected at initial colposcopic assessment? A prospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:253-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00344.x. PubMed PMID: 16445640.
  14. Underwood M, Arbyn M, Parry-Smith W, De Bellis-Ayres S, Todd R, Redman CW, et al. Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2012;119:1293-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03444.x. PubMed PMID: 22882742.
  15. Dalla Palma P, Giorgi Rossi P, Collina G, Buccoliero AM, Ghiringhello B, Lestani M, et al. The risk of false-positive histology according to the reason for colposcopy referral in cervical cancer screening: a blind revision of all histologic lesions found in the NTCC trial. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:75-80. doi: 10.1309/EWYGWFRRM8798U5P. PubMed PMID: 18089491.
  16. Livasy CA, Moore DT, Van Le L. The clinical significance of a negative loop electrosurgical cone biopsy for high-grade dysplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:250-4. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000132803.88049.84. PubMed PMID: 15291995.
  17. Koc N, Sahin D, Ayas S. Reevaluation of negative cone biopsy results after a positive cervical biopsy finding. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17:154-9. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31825c33f9. PubMed PMID: 23519286.
  18. Rodriguez-Manfredi A, Alonso I, del Pino M, Fuste P, Torne A, Ordi J. Predictors of absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the conization specimen. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:271-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.020. PubMed PMID: 23116936.
  19. Negri G, Bellisano G, Zannoni GF, Rivasi F, Kasal A, Vittadello F, et al. p16 ink4a and HPV L1 immunohistochemistry is helpful for estimating the behavior of low-grade dysplastic lesions of the cervix uteri. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1715-20. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181709fbf. PubMed PMID: 18769337.
  20. Kalof AN, Cooper K. Our approach to squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:449-55. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.036426. PubMed PMID: 17046846; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1994530.
  21. Group T. Cytological surveillance compared with immediate referral for colposcopy in management of women with low grade cervical abnormalities: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b2546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2546. PubMed PMID: 19638646; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2718083.
  22. Sorbye SW, Arbyn M, Fismen S, Gutteberg TJ, Mortensen ES. HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing is more specific than cytology in post-colposcopy follow-up of women with negative cervical biopsy. PLoS One. 2011;6:e26022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026022. PubMed PMID: 21998748; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3188582.
  23. Gage JC, Schiffman M, Hunt WC, Joste N, Ghosh A, Wentzensen N, et al. Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139:330-5. doi: 10.1309/AJCPSD3ZXJXP7NNB. PubMed PMID: 23429369; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4125616.
  24. Basu P, Kamal M, Ray C, Bhat D, Ghosh I, Mittal S, et al. Interobserver agreement in the reporting of cervical biopsy specimens obtained from women screened by visual inspection with acetic acid and hybrid capture 2. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2013;32:509-15. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31827b26b1. PubMed PMID: 23896715.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,348
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,327


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب