p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in cervical biopsy specimens

• Verfasst von: Reuschenbach, Miriam [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Knebel Doeberitz, Magnus von [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in cervical biopsy specimens
• Titelzusatz: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the interobserver agreement
• Verf.angabe: Miriam Reuschenbach, Nicolas Wentzensen, Maaike G. Dijkstra, Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz, and Marc Arbyn
• E-Jahr: 2014
• Jahr: 12 January 2014
• Umfang: 6 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 05.11.2020 ; Im Titel ist der Ausdruck "INK4a" hochgestellt
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: American journal of clinical pathology
• Ort Quelle: Chicago, Ill. : Soc., 1931
• Jahr Quelle: 2014
• Band/Heft Quelle: 142(2014), 6, Seite 767-772
• ISSN Quelle: 1943-7722
• DOI: doi:10.1309/AJCP3TPHV4TRIZEK
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1737982617

Abstract

Objectives: The interpretation of cervical biopsy specimens guides management of women with suspected cervical cancer precursors. However, morphologic evaluation is subjective and has low interobserver agreement. Addition of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry may improve interpretation. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on interobserver agreement of p16INK4a positivity using p16INK4a immunohistochemistry and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2+) and CIN grade 3 (CIN3+) classification using H&E morphology in conjunction with p16INK4a in comparison with H&E morphology alone. Results: The literature search revealed five eligible articles. The results show strong agreement of pathologists’ interpretation of cervical biopsy specimens as p16INK4a positive or negative (pooled κ = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.92) and significantly higher agreement for a CIN2+ diagnosis with H&E morphology in conjunction with p16INK4a (κ = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67–0.79) compared with H&E morphology alone (κ = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17–0.65). Also, a slightly higher agreement for CIN3+ can be observed (κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39–0.94 for H&E morphology in conjunction with p16INK4a and κ = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44–0.78 for H&E morphology alone), but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The published literature indicates improved interobserver agreement of the diagnosis of CIN2+ with the conjunctive use of H&E morphology with p16INK4a immunohistochemistry compared with H&E morphology alone.