Premium
Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high‐risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 + lesions of the uterine cervix
Author(s) -
Benevolo Maria,
Terrenato Irene,
Mottolese Marcella,
Marandino Ferdinando,
Muti Paola,
Carosi Mariantonia,
Rollo Francesca,
Ronchetti Livia,
Mariani Luciano,
Vocaturo Giuseppe,
Vocaturo Amina
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
histopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.626
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1365-2559
pISSN - 0309-0167
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03674.x
Subject(s) - cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , koilocyte , immunohistochemistry , medicine , human papillomavirus , biopsy , intraepithelial neoplasia , cervix , colposcopy , histopathology , cervical cancer , hpv infection , pathology , gastroenterology , cancer , prostate
Benevolo M, Terrenato I, Mottolese M, Marandino F, Muti P, Carosi M, Rollo F, Ronchetti L, Mariani L, Vocaturo G & Vocaturo A
(2010) Histopathology 57 , 580–586
Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high‐risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 + lesions of the uterine cervix Aims: To investigate the clinical role of nm23 expression in identifying both high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) and high‐grade cervical lesions or carcinomas [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 + (CIN2 + )], and to compare it with p16 overexpression, as this latter biomarker has already been reported widely in HR‐HPV infected cervical lesions. Methods and results: Immunohistochemical evaluation of nm23 and p16 in 143 cervical biopsy specimens including negative, low‐ and high‐grade lesions and squamous carcinomas (SC). HR‐HPV testing by Digene hybrid capture 2 (HC2) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on the cervico‐vaginal samples of the same patients. In detecting CIN2 + , p16 was significantly more sensitive and specific than nm23 (96.3% versus 81.8% and 66% versus 36.4%, respectively, both P < 0.0001). Concerning HR‐HPV detection by HC2, p16 showed a significantly higher specificity than nm23 (82% versus 47%, P <0.0001), although the sensitivities were comparable (71% versus 76%). We found a significantly direct correlation between nm23 and HC2 findings. However, nm23 expression did not correlate with HPV16/18 infection. In contrast, we observed a significant association between p16 overexpression and HPV16/18 genotypes. Conclusions: We confirm the diagnostic value of p16 overexpression. Moreover, despite in vitro data regarding the interaction with the HPV‐E7 protein, nm23 does not appear to be a more useful biomarker than p16 in identifying CIN2 + or HR‐HPV infection.