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.

Prognostic Impact Of Perineural Invasion And Lymphovascular Invasion In Advanced Stage Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Perineural invasion (PNI) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) have been associated with the risk of local recurrences and lymph node metastasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of PNI and LVI in patients with advanced stage squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue and floor of the mouth. One hundred and forty-two patients without previous treatment were selected. These patients underwent radical surgery with neck dissection and adjuvant treatment. Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the medical charts, including histopathology and surgery reports. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the impact of studied variables on survival. Overall survival was negatively influenced by six tumour-related factors: increasing T stage (P = 0.003), more than two clinically positive nodes (P = 0.002), extracapsular spread of lymph node metastasis (P < 0.001), tumour thickness (P = 0.04), PNI (P < 0.001), and LVI (P = 0.012). Disease-free survival was influenced by PNI (P = 0.04), extracapsular spread of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.008), and N stage (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis showed PNI to be an independent predictor for overall survival (P = 0.01) and disease-free survival (P = 0.03). Thus the presence of PNI in oral carcinoma surgical specimens has a significant impact on survival outcomes in patients with advanced stage tumours submitted to radical surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy/radiochemotherapy.

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.