Journals / Medicine Science / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

P16 staining patterns and their relationships with clinical parameters in cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Pages
196–201
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was observed that p16 expression is important in CIN evaluation and reduces subjective evaluation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to investigate the contribution of the p16 immunohistochemical marker in the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) cases in the distinction between CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and the relationship of CINs with age, localization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 preparations of 2015 in the pathology department were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was observed that p16 expression is important in CIN evaluation and reduces subjective evaluation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The aim of this study is to investigate the contribution of the p16 immunohistochemical marker in the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) cases in the distinction between CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and the relationship of CINs with age, localization. CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 preparations of 2015 in the pathology department were retrospectively analyzed. New sections of 3 μm thickness were obtained on polylysine slides from paraffin blocks of these tissues. Samples with immunohistochemical staining with p16 were evaluated under a light microscope.p16 expression was semiquantitatively assessed according to staining intensity with 4 staining levels as score 0,1,2,3. As a result of the Kruskal-Wallis test, a significant difference was found between the scores in the CIN groups (p 0.05). The variations between CIN groups and anatomical locations on the cervix were examined with Chi-square test. There was no change in the frequency distribution of CIN groups in the anatomical locations on the cervix (p> 0.05). In cervical intraepithelial neoplasms, p16 was found to show increased staining with the severity of the lesion. It was observed that p16 expression is important in CIN evaluation and reduces subjective evaluation.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, M. A., ERDEM, H., ÇANKAYA, S., ARICI, Y. (2021). P16 staining patterns and their relationships with clinical parameters in cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Medicine Science, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 196–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/276730

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Xing Y, Wang C, Wu J. Expression of geminin, p16, and Ki67 in cervical intraepithelial neoplasm and normal tissues.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:7302
  2. Nayar R, Wibur DC. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology: a historical perspective. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:359-72
  3. Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al. The lower anogenital squamous terminology standardization project for HPV-associated lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:1266-97
  4. Martin CM, O’Leary JJ, Phil D. Histology of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the role of biomarkers. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet gynaecol. 2011;25:605–15
  5. Heatley MK.How should we grade CIN? Histopathology. 2002;40:377–80
  6. Alshenawy HA. Evaluation of p16, human papillomavirus capsid protein L1 and Ki-67 in cervical intraepithelial lesions: potential utility in diagnosis and prognosis. Pathol Res Pract. 2004;210:916–21
  7. Rouzier R. Management of CIN1. J Gynecol Obstet Biol R. 2008;1:114–20
  8. Baak JP, Kruse AJ, Robboy SJ, et al. Dynamic behavioural interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with molecular biomarkers. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:1017–28
  9. Prendiville W, Sankaranarayanan R. Colposcopy and treatment of cervical precancer. Lyon: IARC Technical Publication. 2017;131:28-32
  10. Rosa M, Mohammadi A. Cervical cytology and human papillomavirus testing in adolescent women: implications in management of a positive HPV test. Patholog Res Int. 2014;2014:165690
  11. Keating JT, Cviko A, Riethdorf S, et al. Ki-67, cyclin E, and p16INK4 are complimentary surrogate biomarkers for humanpapillomavirus-related cervical neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:884–91
  12. Herrington CS. The terminology of pre-invasive cervical lesions in the UK cervical screening programme. Cytopathology. 2015;26:346–50
  13. Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, et al. Risk factors and other epidemiological considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the US. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:698-705
  14. Mishra GA, Pimple SA, Shastri SS. An overview of prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2011;32:125-32
  15. Liverani CA, Dig J, Clemente N, et al.Length but not transverse diameter of the excision specimen for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2–3) is a predictor of pr