p16 staining has limited value in predicting the outcome of histological low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix.

Abstract

In order to evaluate the usefulness of p16 staining in predicting the outcome of histological low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (LSIL/CIN1) we prospectively recruited all the patients referred to colposcopy from 2003 to 2011 due to abnormal screening test results and diagnosed with LSIL/CIN1 at biopsy (n=507). All biopsies were stained for p16 and re-evaluated after three years by the same gynecological pathologist using the LAST criteria. Follow-up was conducted every 6 months and included a Pap test (liquid-based cytology), high-risk human papillomavirus testing (Hybrid Capture 2 test), and colposcopy. The mean follow-up was 28 months. An outcome diagnosis of HSIL was defined as a histological diagnosis of high-grade SIL/CIN (HSIL/CIN2-3). The diagnosis of LSIL/CIN1 was confirmed in 416 out of 507 biopsies (82%), whereas 58 (11%) were reclassified as negative and 33 (6%) as HSIL/CIN2-3. During follow-up, 86/507 women initially diagnosed with LSIL/CIN1 (17%) showed an outcome diagnosis of HSIL/CIN2-3, with the rate of HSIL final diagnosis of 3% (2/58) in the women with biopsies reclassified as negative, 17% (70/416) in the group with confirmed LSIL and 42% (14/33) in the women with biopsies reclassified as HSIL (P<0.001). p16 was positive in 245/507 patients (48%) and in 210/416 patients (50%) with confirmed LSIL/CIN1 at re-evaluation. Although positive p16 immunostaining was associated with risk of HSIL/CIN2-3 outcome in the multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.1; P=0.009) in the overall group of patients with LSIL/CIN1, this association was not verified in the subset of patients with confirmed LSIL/CIN1 after re-evaluation (HR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.9-2.6; P=0.095). In conclusion, in LSIL/CIN1 lesions p16 should be limited to equivocal cases in which HSIL/CIN2 is included in the differential diagnosis since it has low value in clinical practice as a marker of progression of LSIL/CIN1.