Prognostic Value Of Dna And Mrna E6/e7 Of Human Papillomavirus In The Evolution Of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2.

This study aimed at evaluating whether human papillomavirus (HPV) groups and E6/E7 mRNA of HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 are prognostic of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 outcome in women with a cervical smear showing a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). This cohort study included women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 who were followed up for 12 months, with cervical smear and colposcopy performed every three months. Women with a negative or low-risk HPV status showed 100% CIN 2 regression. The CIN 2 regression rates at the 12-month follow-up were 69.4% for women with alpha-9 HPV versus 91.7% for other HPV species or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). For women with HPV 16, the CIN 2 regression rate at the 12-month follow-up was 61.4% versus 89.5% for other HPV types or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). The CIN 2 regression rate was 68.3% for women who tested positive for HPV E6/E7 mRNA versus 82.0% for the negative results, but this difference was not statistically significant. The expectant management for women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 and previous cytological tests showing LSIL exhibited a very high rate of spontaneous regression. HPV 16 is associated with a higher CIN 2 progression rate than other HPV infections. HPV E6/E7 mRNA is not a prognostic marker of the CIN 2 clinical outcome, although this analysis cannot be considered conclusive. Given the small sample size, this study could be considered a pilot for future larger studies on the role of predictive markers of CIN 2 evolution.

P16(ink) (4a) Expression As A Potential Marker Of Low-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression.

To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.