Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar;125(3):212-220.
doi: 10.1002/cncy.21800. Epub 2016 Dec 7.

Interobserver reproducibility of cytologic p16INK4a /Ki-67 dual immunostaining in human papillomavirus-positive women

Maria Benevolo  1 , Elena Allia  2 , Daniela Gustinucci  3 , Francesca Rollo  1 , Simonetta Bulletti  3 , Elena Cesarini  3 , Basilio Passamonti  3 , Maria Rosaria Giovagnoli  4 , Elisabetta Carico  4 , Francesca M Carozzi  5 , Alessandra Mongia  5 , Giulia Fantacci  5 , Massimo Confortini  5 , Teresa Rubino  6 , Cristina Fodero  6 , Sonia Prandi  6 , Natalina Marchi  7 , Angelo Farruggio  7 , Anna Coccia  2 , Luigia Macrì  2 , Bruno Ghiringhello  2 , Guglielmo Ronco  2 , Emma Bragantini  8 , Enzo Polla  8 , Vincenzo Maccallini  9 , Giovanni Negri  10 , Paolo Giorgi Rossi  6   11 ; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening 2 (NTCC2) Working Group
Affiliations
Free article

Interobserver reproducibility of cytologic p16INK4a /Ki-67 dual immunostaining in human papillomavirus-positive women

Maria Benevolo et al. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Mar.
Free article

Abstract

Background: The accumulation of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16ink4a ) protein in a cell is associated with neoplastic progression in precancerous cervical lesions. Dual staining for p16ink4a and Ki-67 has been proposed as a triage test in cervical cancer screening for women who test positive for human papillomavirus DNA. In this study, interobserver reproducibility of the interpretation of this test was assessed.

Methods: Forty-two immunostained, liquid-based cytology slides were divided into 2 sets and were interpreted by 17 to 21 readers from 9 different laboratories, yielding a total of 816 reports. Immunostaining results were classified as positive, negative, inconclusive, or inadequate. After evaluation of the first set of slides and before circulation of the second set, the results were discussed in a plenary meeting. The 10 slides with the most discordant results were evaluated again by selected expert cytopathologists.

Results: The overall κ value was 0.612 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.523-0.701), it was higher for the positive and negative categories (κ = 0.692 and κ = 0.641, respectively), and it was almost null for the inconclusive category (κ = 0.058). Considering only readers from laboratories with documented experience, the κ value was higher (κ = 0.747; 95% CI, 0.643-0.839) compared with nonexperienced centers (κ = 0.498; 95% CI, 0.388-0.616). The results were similar in both sets of slides (κ = 0.505 [95% CI, 0.358-0.642] and κ = 0.521 [95% CI, 0.240-0.698] for the first and second sets, respectively). Reinterpretation of the slides with the most discordant results did not provide any improvement (first evaluation, κ = 0.616 [95% CI, 0.384-0.866]; second evaluation, κ = 0.403 [95% CI, 0.182-0.643]).

Conclusions: Dual staining for p16 ink4a and Ki-67 demonstrated good reproducibility, confirming its robustness, which is a necessary prerequisite for its adoption as a triage test in cervical cancer screening programs that use human papillomavirus DNA as a primary test. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:212-220. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: cervical cancer; cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16ink4a)/Ki-67; dual immunostaining; human papillomavirus; inter-rater agreement.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based Screening for Preventing Invasive Cervical Cancer: follow-up of European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383:524-532.
    1. Anttila A, Arbyn M, de Vuyst H, et al. eds. European Commission European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. 2nd ed. Supplements. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2015.
    1. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:516-542.
    1. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:880-891.
    1. von Knebel Doeberitz M. New markers for cervical dysplasia to visualise the genomic chaos created by aberrant oncogenic papillomavirus infections. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:2229-2242.

MeSH terms

Substances