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
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Sep;125(10):1226-1233.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15289. Epub 2018 Jun 15.

Accuracy of p57KIP2 compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J M Madi  1   2 , A Braga  3   4 , M P Paganella  5 , I E Litvin  1 , E M Wendland  6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Accuracy of p57KIP2 compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J M Madi et al. BJOG. 2018 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor inter-observer reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57KIP2 immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for CHM.

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of p57KIP2 immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of CHM.

Search strategy: Major databases were searched from inception to March 2017 using the terms 'hydatidiform mole', 'p57', and 'genotyping', with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design.

Selection criteria: Any cross-sectional study, case series, case-control study, cohort study, or clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy of p57KIP2 immunostaining for the diagnosis of CHM compared with genotyping was included. Case reports, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and animal testing were excluded.

Data collection and analysis: Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random effects model.

Main results: Bivariate meta-analysis produced a summary sensitivity of 0.984 (95% CI: 0.916-1.000) and specificity of 0.625 (95% CI: 0.503-0.736) with significant heterogeneity for specificity (I2 = 71.8, chi-square P = 0.029). The pooled summary diagnostic odds ratio was 56.54 (95% CI: 11.03-289.74) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00%, chi-square P = 0.67). The diagnostic performance of the test was high with an area under the curve of (AUC) 0.980.

Conclusions: p57KIP2 immunostaining is accurate when diagnosing CHM. It can be used as an adjunct test in a combination algorithmic approach.

Tweetable abstract: A meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of p57KIP2 compared with genotyping to diagnose CHM.

Keywords: Complete hydatidiform mole; meta-analysis; molecular genotyping; p57 immunohistochemistry; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Methodological evaluation according to QUADAS‐2 of the included studies. QUADAS‐2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The summary receiver operator characteristic curve. AUC, area under the curve; SE, standard error; SROC, summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Landolsi H, Missaoui N, Brahem S, Hmissa S, Gribaa M. The usefulness of p57 KIP2 immunohistochemical staining and genotyping test in the diagnosis of the hydatidiform mole. Pathol Res Pract 2011;207:498–504. - PubMed
    1. Stevens FT, Katzorke N, Tempfer C, Kreimer U, Bizjak GI, Fleisch MC, et al. Gestational trophoblastic disorders: an update in 2015. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015;75:1043–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Berkowitz RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Lancet 2010;376:717–29. - PubMed
    1. Eysbouts YK, Bulten J, Ottevanger PB, Thomas CM, Ten Kate‐Booij MJ, van Herwaarden AE, et al. Trends in incidence for gestational trophoblastic disease over the last 20 years in a population‐based study. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140:70–5. - PubMed
    1. Steigrad SJ. Epidemiology of gestational trophoblastic diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2003;17:837–47. - PubMed

Substances