Cargando…
The value of Ki67 for the diagnosis of LSIL and the problems of p16 in the diagnosis of HSIL
p16 and Ki67 are immunohistochemical markers related to cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. p16 has been widely used to assist in the diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. However, a conclusion about the role of Ki67 in the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions has...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9085733/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35534530 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11584-z |
Sumario: | p16 and Ki67 are immunohistochemical markers related to cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. p16 has been widely used to assist in the diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. However, a conclusion about the role of Ki67 in the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions has not been established. The aim of this study was to analyze the role of p16 and Ki67 immunohistochemical staining in assisting cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. This study performed immunohistochemical staining for p16 and Ki67 on 1024 cervical biopsy specimens at our hospital to compare the differences between p16 and Ki67 in different cervical lesions using the chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. This study also evaluated the value of Ki67 for the diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) using the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results indicated that Ki67 had high specificity and sensitivity in distinguishing LSIL from normal cervix. p16 was diffusely and strongly positive in some LSILs, and some problems were encountered in the interpretation of p16 staining. Therefore, we believe that Ki67 can be used as an immunohistochemical marker to help in the diagnosis of LSIL, to distinguish lesions that are difficult to morphologically determine and to avoid misdiagnosis. The practical application of p16 staining is still problematic. It may be necessary to find other auxiliary means to distinguish this small proportion of cervical lesions. |
---|