Cargando…
Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in many populations. While the Pap smear is a well established screening test it suffers from both false-positive and false-negative results in diagnosis of cancers and precancerous states. In this study, immunocytochemistry of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454662/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125865 http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5223 |
_version_ | 1783240872730558464 |
---|---|
author | Khazaei, Sedigheh Izadi, Babak Mirbahari, Seyed Ghasem Madani, Seyed Hamid Khosravi, Shohre Malek Alagha, Mohsen Emami Sajadimajd, Soraya |
author_facet | Khazaei, Sedigheh Izadi, Babak Mirbahari, Seyed Ghasem Madani, Seyed Hamid Khosravi, Shohre Malek Alagha, Mohsen Emami Sajadimajd, Soraya |
author_sort | Khazaei, Sedigheh |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in many populations. While the Pap smear is a well established screening test it suffers from both false-positive and false-negative results in diagnosis of cancers and precancerous states. In this study, immunocytochemistry of the P16 biomarker and HPV-PCR were compared for their diagnostic potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the study, we obtained pairs of specimens from 45 women with cervical dysplasia. One sample was placed in a liquid-based solution, and processed for staining of sections with antibodies to P16. HPV-PCR was performed on the other and the results obtained were analyzed by T-test using SPSS v. 15. RESULTS: Using HPV-PCR 71% of the samples were found to be infected with either HPV 16 or HPV 18, and the rate of infection did not have a statistically significant relationship with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.253). In contrast, with immunocytochemistry evaluation of P16, 64% of the specimens were positive, but the percentage of positive results significantly increased with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Employment of the P16 marker as an optional test might be preferable over HPV-PCR for cervical dysplasia in our geographical region. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5454662 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54546622017-08-28 Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology Khazaei, Sedigheh Izadi, Babak Mirbahari, Seyed Ghasem Madani, Seyed Hamid Khosravi, Shohre Malek Alagha, Mohsen Emami Sajadimajd, Soraya Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Research Article BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in many populations. While the Pap smear is a well established screening test it suffers from both false-positive and false-negative results in diagnosis of cancers and precancerous states. In this study, immunocytochemistry of the P16 biomarker and HPV-PCR were compared for their diagnostic potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the study, we obtained pairs of specimens from 45 women with cervical dysplasia. One sample was placed in a liquid-based solution, and processed for staining of sections with antibodies to P16. HPV-PCR was performed on the other and the results obtained were analyzed by T-test using SPSS v. 15. RESULTS: Using HPV-PCR 71% of the samples were found to be infected with either HPV 16 or HPV 18, and the rate of infection did not have a statistically significant relationship with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.253). In contrast, with immunocytochemistry evaluation of P16, 64% of the specimens were positive, but the percentage of positive results significantly increased with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Employment of the P16 marker as an optional test might be preferable over HPV-PCR for cervical dysplasia in our geographical region. West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5454662/ /pubmed/28125865 http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5223 Text en Copyright: © Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-SA/4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License |
spellingShingle | Research Article Khazaei, Sedigheh Izadi, Babak Mirbahari, Seyed Ghasem Madani, Seyed Hamid Khosravi, Shohre Malek Alagha, Mohsen Emami Sajadimajd, Soraya Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title | Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title_full | Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title_fullStr | Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title_short | Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology |
title_sort | comparison between two detection methods for hpv16, hpv18 and p16ink4a biomarkers in diagnosis of abnormal cervical cytology |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454662/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125865 http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5223 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khazaeisedigheh comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT izadibabak comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT mirbahariseyedghasem comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT madaniseyedhamid comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT khosravishohremalek comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT alaghamohsenemami comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology AT sajadimajdsoraya comparisonbetweentwodetectionmethodsforhpv16hpv18andp16ink4abiomarkersindiagnosisofabnormalcervicalcytology |