Test Characteristics of Specific p16 Clones in the Detection of High-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (HSIL). (January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shain, Alana F.; Wilbur, David C.; Stoler, Mark H.; Quade, Bradley J.; Kong, Christina S.
• Is Part Of: International journal of gynecological pathology. Volume 37:Number 1(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-01
• Subjects: p16 -- Clone -- LAST Project -- Squamous intraepithelial lesion -- SIL; Gynecologic pathology -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 618.10705
• DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000391
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-1691

Abstract

Abstract : p16 immunohistochemistry is recommended by the CAP-ASCCP Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) Standardization Project for human papillomavirus associated Lesions as an adjunct to morphologic assessment in the diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. This study evaluates the performance of different p16 clones as compared with E6H4 (CINtec) in detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. The 54 high-quality articles addressing the performance of p16 identified by work group 4 of the LAST Project were evaluated for: specific p16 clone, scoring method, number of cases, anatomic site, and histologic diagnoses. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each clone. Two-proportion z tests (pooled) were used to evaluate significance. In total, 32 of the 54 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used clone was E6H4 (17 studies, 3507 cases) with smaller numbers (1–4) of studies evaluating the following: 16P04, JC8, 16P07, G175-405, K5334, K5336, and 7962. p16 clones 16P04 and JC8 performed better than E6H4 with 16P04 exhibiting statistically significant higher sensitivity (94% vs. 87% for E6H4), specificity (94% vs. 81%), and positive predictive value (96% vs. 69%) while JC8 exhibited higher specificity (91% vs. 81%) and positive predictive value (88% vs. 69%). 16P07 performed similarly to E6H4 and the other 4 clones did not perform as well as E6H4. p16 clones 16P04, JC8, and 16P07 clones perform as well or better than the widely used p16 clone E6H4 (CINtec). However, further studies are indicated to determine the reproducibility of these findings and the impact of interlaboratory variation on test performance.