Comparison of values of immunocytochemical P16/Ki-67 double staining, P16 INK4α single staining and high-risk human papillomavirus testing in screening of high-grade cervical lesions
10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20210820-00360
- VernacularTitle:免疫细胞化学P16/Ki-67双染、P16 INK4α单染及高危型人乳头瘤病毒检测筛查高级别子宫颈病变价值比较
- Author:
Junyan WEI
1
;
Xue XING
;
Fei WANG
;
Jialu BAI
;
Yang YU
;
Yanhua WANG
;
Hong YAO
;
Yuqing YANG
Author Information
1. 太原钢铁（集团）有限公司总医院病理科，太原 030008
- Keywords:
Cervical neoplasms;
High-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia;
P16/Ki-67 double staining;
P16 INK4α single staining;
High-risk human papillo
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2022;34(3):180-183
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the screening values of immunocytochemical P16/Ki-67 double staining, P16 INK4α single staining and high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing for high-grade cervical lesions. Methods:The clinical data of 622 patients who underwent cervical thin-layer liquid-based cytology (TCT) and HR-HPV testing in General Hospital of Taiyuan Iron and Steel (Group) Co., Ltd. from March 2019 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The remaining cytological specimens were detected by P16/Ki-67 double staining and P16 INK4α single staining. Among them, 334 patients with TCT results suggesting atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and above and HPV-positive underwent colposcopy pathological biopsy. Using pathological results as reference, the positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of P16/Ki-67 double staining, P16 INK4α single staining and HR-HPV testing for screening of high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL) and cervical cancer were compared. Results:Taking the results of histopathology as references, combined with the results of TCT, 31 of 622 patients were HSIL, of which 22 (71.0%) were positive for P16/Ki-67 double staining, 23 (74.2%) were positive for P16 INK4α single staining, and 25 (80.6%) were positive for HR-HPV testing; 4 cases were cervical cancer, and the positive rates of the three detection methods were all 100.0% (4/4). Among 622 patients, the positive rates of P16/Ki-67 double staining, P16 INK4α single staining and HR-HPV testing for screening of HSIL and cervical cancer were 13.99% (87/622), 25.40% (158/622) and 21.38% (133/622); the positive predictive values were 29.89%, 17.09% and 21.08%; the accuracies were 91.19%, 78.94% and 83.28%; the specificities were 89.77%, 77.98% and 82.46%; the sensitivities were 74.29%, 77.14% and 82.86%. The positive rate, positive predictive value, specificity and accuracy of P16/Ki-67 double staining were higher than those of P16 INK4α single staining and HR-HPV testing, and the differences were statistically significant ( z values were -5.062 and -3.418, 2.328 and 2.450, 5.436 and 3.570, 6.043 and 4.161, all P < 0.05); the sensitivity of HR-HPV testing was higher than that of P16/Ki-67 double staining and P16 INK4α single staining, but the differences were not statistically significant ( z values were -0.890 and 1.017, both P > 0.05). Conclusions:HR-HPV testing is more suitable for primary cervical lesion screening; P16/Ki-67 double staining can be used as a potential combined cell screening tool or an effective triage tool; P16 INK4α single staining has certain limitations.
